>> i would ask that you do wrap this up at the five minutes. i know you have a hard leave time, and we still have several members, so -- >> and i completely concur with that. i would be happy o see it in writing, so i appreciate it. >> let me just -- i would welcome the opportunity to provide it. we'll be completely transparent with you. we have voluminous records on how cerp is spent and the 400 million spent to support the security gains averages about 17,000 a project, and we can show you every single project and lay that out for you. the cerp aif is working its way through because that's spent in coordination with aid, as i'm sure you know, and the cerp for e reintegration, 50 million, has been invaluable in the helping our afghan partners initiate the conduct of reconcilable members. we've spent about five to six million of that so far. ..

2014 is not moving the globe but setting the goal of when we expect to complete the transition to afghanistan's security countrieswide. these are bookends. it is not removing of the goal post. my time is a buy will follow up. >> mr. hunter?

>> secretary flournoy, thank you for being so accessible and dealing with so much so we can -- you have made yourself very available all the time. general david petraeus, i don't think people understand the sacrifice and time. you have been going nonstop since you first deployed to iraq. it is hard for anybody -- is nothing compared to when you have gone through and your family and your wife and how tired you must be. nobody wants victory in afghanistan more than you do and we understand that. with that i want to thank you too in the fourth striker brigade. he is not happy with that but we are. pertaining to iraq, thank you for giving us victory. you and general jean and my father wrote a book called victory iraq ended is because of you. i don't think we talk about that

enough. thank you for that. first question is in the first part of your testimony he said i do believe there will be combat forces included in those options, and in regard to chairman mckeon's question. the question is is every option you are going to submit going to have combat forces included or will that be one of the options? >> i am still working on the options. there are still some months to run. it is something that will be based on conditions on the ground and frankly in the commander wants as much flexibility as he can prior to providing options and recommendations so we are going to exercise that to the best of our ability. >> will every option have -- if you get five options will all

five include combat troop withdrawal or could that be included? >> could be included. and don't want to get into what each auction will include because i am still formulating it. >> when it comes to risk is congress going to be presented with a risk analysis of the draw down. >> the risk goes up by this much -- >> there is a variety of criteria one of which is it is a meaningful implementation of the policy. there's something about the urgency that does have significance as secretary gates explained effectively. in other cases there will certainly be risks and other aspect. i will ways that out for the chain of command which will be extraordinarily closely held and

be presented to the president beyond that point in time i will defer to the pentagon on how they share that with congress. >> i know that cerp works and there's no way to better spend money than to put it into the commander's hands. the ground commanders like the mayor of that town. on was working with general duncan, trying to think of his first name, party fields. too many duncans and ones. he is no longer there. we were looking at how a was being spent on the state department side. that was a big question lot of folks had because the military keeps extraordinary records. the state department doesn't

always. who is in charge now for further contact from me? who should we be contacting to make sure the aid money is being spent? these hundred million dollar bundles that usaid is spending? >> the two people providing oversight can't get the deputy secretary of state and the head of usaid. they have provided clear guidance on what the priority should be down at the embassy level. that has been integrated as a civilian dimension of an integrated campaign plan with isaf and their oversight levels as well. they would be happy to explain to you how that works and how what is integrated with the campaign. >> i will finish early. thank you for your service.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you, undersecretary flournoy and general david petraeus for your service to the nation. thank you for being here today. you have done something many people who didn't think could be done and that was to establish an orderly withdrawal from iraq. i know of nobody who says anything like we failed over there even though it was a mission that should not have been undertaken in my opinion but nevertheless we are in a bad situation, we have drawn down considerably quite a few troops and i look forward to the same

eventuality in afghanistan and the sooner the better. i have heard the president and you this morning say that the principal objective of the united states in afghanistan is to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al qaeda. i also heard you say today that we are there to subdue the taliban, promote economic development, and engage in diplomacy. the diplomacy has to do with political reconciliation. am i correct? >> first of all if i could, our core objective in afghanistan relates to al qaeda.

that is to make sure that al qaeda does not return to afghanistan and establish the kind of sanctuary they had prior to 9/11. that is the focus. [talking over each other] >> only 100 or so -- [talking over each other] >> the only way to make sure they don't return in greater numbers is to help afghanistan to develop the capability to secure and govern itself and that leads to the need for comprehensive civil military campaign that i described it this morning. >> so we have moved past the subdue legal turtle disrupt, dismantle and defeat al qaeda and we are on the second strategy of subduing the taliban. how many people would use a we are engaged with militarily in

afghanistan in terms of opposition? >> as i mentioned earlier, the upper bound with the in the 25,000 range-given the losses of the fighters we will see how that transpires this spring and summer. it is not at that level right now. i can what you around the map and show you where the active insurgent groups are. >> what are you saying and i hate to interrupt but i don't have a lot of time is we are substantially forward in terms of controlling the taliban. how are we doing as far as

reconciliation? political reconciliation? >> there are two components to reconciliation. there is a component that is reintegration of reconcilable mid-level leaders and below. as i mentioned in my opening statement there are 700 of those who have officially reintegrated, gone through all the steps of the official reintegration. another 2,000 or so hard various stages of that process and we are trying to get a grip on how many have unofficially reintegrated by going back to the village and lay down their weapons and reintegrating themselves into society without making a big deal so they don't make themselves vulnerable to the taliban or visible to the taliban as having done that. the reconciliation with senior taliban level leaders is something that has to the afghan led. that is what secretary clinton

talked about in terms of the diplomatic scourged and so forth. >> thank you. >> thank you, general petraeus, and madame secretary for your service to the country. the secretary of defense recently said at a speech in west point that if a general came up to him and recommended that we do the similar action, we invade and worse to the effect of engaging nation-building again that he would say absolutely not. i just want to second that. we have significant security interests in afghanistan. we don't want the taliban to take over the country to make that a permissive environment whereby we could leverage that as a nation state to destabilize pakistan.

... the taliban on the other side and we need some basis for which we can launch attacks against al qaeda in the fog - a --fatah areas of pakistan but we have taken the most costly approach to chief security interest in afghanistan. spending over $100 billion a year and the american taxpayers will be on the hook in definitely even when we are out of afghanistan there's a projected $8 billion a year cost in terms of maintaining afghan security forces because they don't have an economy to do that, that we are in effect -- our first action, we gave air logistical and advisory support to the anti taliban forces in the country which are the no.

alliance and they drove them out. instead of using our leverage to say you need to reach out to the anti taliban elements of the country, we will assist you so long as you keep the taliban and al qaeda out. we led an effort to superimpose political system on them that doesn't fit the political culture of the country. it doesn't have the capacity to gather outside of kabul. we are trying to build them the economy u.s. taxpayers' expense that they never had before. we are not nation-building in switzerland but over $100 billion a year -- but i got to tell you this. i am a hard position. after this whole thing was going on occasion to congress and i volunteered to go to iraq even though i disagree with invading

the country because one thing we have an obligation is finish the job. we can't simply run away. we can't expeditiously extricate ourselves from that situation. i just want to tell you that i served this country for a third time, army and marine corps as a member of congress on this committee. if i accomplish anything it is keeping this country from ever going down this path again. could you please no matter -- i was raised in the helmet province in november where they are making tactical successes but tactical successes on the ground are meaningless unless we have the afghans coming in with a government's peace after week stabilized and area. could you tell me are the afghans able to accomplish that? can you give me any specifics

where they stepped in? >> absolutely. if you look at the five central districts of the helmand province you'll find good district governors in charge of each of them. in some cases it has taken more than one to get to that point like in the case of marcia but in each case we assess district governors and potential governor as quite positive individuals doing good work. with respect, you are correct the first actions were brilliant. certainly it was a lightning campaign that took out the taliban but they were not sufficiently capitalized on and had we left it like that it would have been in the hands of the war lords that we used to get rid of the taliban and there is no indication that they could have controlled the country and would have plunged back into a civil war.

we certainly have to think through the second, third and fourth order effects of these endeavors without question and i agree with you very strongly on that. also with respect, this is the only approach to achieving our objectives in afghanistan. if you don't want to achieve those objectives that is a different matter. the fact is we have tried every other approach and put a slide in that showed the different approaches we tried along the way. essentially counter-terrorism, counterinsurgency and these other approaches and i can assure you none of them is adequate and that is why we are doing what we are doing. finally i think it is only fair to recognize that afghanistan first of all is a nation state before our own state and second had forty to 50 years of quite

reasonable national peace and tranquility under a central government from kabul prior to the onset of 30 years of tragic war that they sustained. >> i yield back. >> madam secretary general, i know your time to leave was 1:00. could i ask you to stay another 15 minutes? i think we can do another 10 minutes but we are meeting with the former speaker is our next appointment on my side. >> let's say another 20. >> mr. west, try to give equal -- >> thank you, secretary flournoy and general petraeus. i spend 2-1/2 years in afghanistan and i am looking forward to getting back over to visit but based on my recent trip to guantanamo bay and the issues we know we are having,

how is the administration planning to handle the transfer or release of high value detainees and third country nationalss when withdrawal occurs? how are we planning to release or transfer these populations of detainees who are members of al qaeda and affiliated splinter groups in putting national security at risk? >> thanks for what you did do. we look forward to getting another master paratrooper out with us. with respect there has been substantial improvement. there is an article in the washington post that individuals who are in charge of helping the afghan and state department individuals with providing updated information for them. there are still significant areas in which there need to be

improvements but we have focused a fair amount with the joint task force not just on insuring that the detention facility at that room airbase --bagram airbase monitors this which we are not allowed to use the name of the it is called the gold standard in detention operations. we are seeking to help our afghan partners as well because indeed you do have to take bad guys off of the battlefield in a counterinsurgency operation and they can't be broken out as they were broke and out of the prison down in kandahar and there hasn't been a jail break down their annually since in the last year and half. with respect to the third country detainees this is a substantial policy issue that i am happy to hand off to the u p

usdp. >> we have feared county nationals and the facility at blogger hmmm --bagram. they are reviewed by the detention review board within 60 days and six months after to determine their status whether they meet the criteria for continued determined or should be recommended for transfer to a third country. those recommendations come from the secretary of defense level for review. if we were to have additional third country nationals captured in afghanistan they would be brought to that facility which is not part of what it will be transferred to afghan control as we transition responsibility for detention operations. >> we have begun the process of transition in the detention

arena as well. we started last year with the training and development of afghan security forces to over time can take over various detainee housing units in detention facility in parwam. the process is we provide the basis for which they were detained which is in our system a national security threat under the u.n. security kill the resolution that gives us this authority. we help them establish the case for charging under afghan law and interestingly biometrics and other forensics have proven to be helpful and persuasive that we get off improvised explosive devices and so forth and as i said that process has begun already and a couple hundred have been transitioned and it is

excel rating as we go along. >> i will see you in the box and i yield back to the chairman. >> mr. ryan? >> appreciate the opportunity to speak. thank you for sticking around. it is appropriate that this may be the final question or final conversation that we have. the issue of suicides among our soldiers from 2005 through 2009. we have had 11,000 -- 1100 soldiers commit suicide every 36 hours. navy times said 7.3% of army, navy and marines have fought about attempting suicide. have we changed our pre deployment training corps training in general to try to help diminish these numbers a bit? >> we have. we have also taken a number of steps, in a whole host of different ways including

increasing staffing of medical professionals to deal with this to turning of leaders to identify individuals who might be at risk, literally training them all to be willing to raise one's hand and not feel as if it is unacceptable to say i am feeling under considerable stress and so forth and would like to talk to someone about it. the rate in afghanistan has been significantly less since these have been instituted. there are also significant policies that have been enacted for post deployment because that is where the challenges are. it is not something i have had oversight of as a commander in afghanistan but obviously monitored as an army 4 star with a chief of staff directing a

number of actions for the post deployment period as well. >> there is intense interest and concern on the part of the secretary, the chief and secretary about this issue. interestingly from what we can tell the data suggest there is not a strong correlation with deployment. the rates don't increase based on time deployed or members of deployment. in any case there is an intensive effort to broad education effort on how to identify the signs, giving people the sense they can come forward with concern of risk in their careers. much more resources of prevention programs, greater availability of prevention programs and much broader efforts to get an overall stress

whether it manifests itself in this way or divorce rates and so forth so this has risen to the level of getting strategic level tension in the department. >> i appreciate that and a lot of these numbers don't include those people who also get car accidents because of substance abuse and you guys know the routine. i wanted to bring this up to you primarily because general petraeus, you are the preeminent military man in our country today and i wanted to bring to your attention and you guys probably know some of this already but recent brain science, gives great hope to some of these soldiers. i want to point you to a study and a program called mind fitness by elisabeth stanley in georgetown with a narrow scientist and date did this study dealing with working memory capacity and power

through the training, they studied about 30 marines through the mind fitness training you can actually build up resiliency within the working memory capacity and studies have shown outside of the military increased working memory capacity have all kinds of benefits that would benefit the soldier situational awareness, attention skills, all these great things but in addition to that, shea sites in her report which i will end each of you here, working people with low working memory capacity with poor academic achievement, were standardized tests, lower episodes of mind wandering which gets to the operational side but they are more likely to suffer post-traumatic stress disorder, substance abuse and are more likely to exhibit prejudicial behavior towards personally dislike groups. the point is part of our

training free deployment can work and increasing working memory capacity as a buffer throughout deployment and possibly on opportunities. a lot more studies have to be done. i want to take this opportunity to bring it to your attention because it can be transformational for how we train our troops. >> the army launched an initiative on resiliency training. that you can actually again hard and an incan actually

training is carried out. this hearing will be adjourned. >> thank you very much. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> on television, on radio and

online, c-span, bringing public affairs to you created by cable, washington your way. >> the u.s. senate gavels in next to resume debate on a small business research and development bill. later we begin three hours of debate on that short-term spending bill funding the federal government through april 8th. look for a vote around 3:30 eastern. now live senate coverage here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order.

today's opening prayer will be offered by reverend thad austin, associate pastor of the first methodist church in murfreesboro, tennessee. the chaplain: let us pray. o lord, in whom we find life, bind our nation to you. make us a people devoted to prayer. tame our wandering hearts and help us discover the meaning of freedom, justice, and mercy. help our people to have the faith to seek you and the grace to pray for our enemies. lord, this is a solemn and holy day. today we celebrate a saint of your church. may the virtues that st. patrick embodied be instructive to us.

for despite adversity, patrick helped others find good news, and his actions changed a society. may our lawmakers, like patrick, grow in their love for you and their service to others. enable them to see beyond the positions that divide this body and help them to long after humility, piety, and shared purpose. increase our faith, o lord, and help our unbelief. rouse our spirit and make us one nation under you. eternal father, spirit, word, we praise you, the lord and light of our salvation. hear our prayer, o lord. amen.

the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., march 17, 2011. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable tom udall, a senator from the state of new mexico, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: it was a great honor to have thad austin of murfreesboro, tennessee, provide the opening prayer this morning.

i -- i thank him for his wise words. i first met the reverend austin as an alma mater at the university in willmore, kentucky, when i visited there in 2007. it is to engage the world and serve the world through public service. our guest chaplain has pursued that mission with great success. maybe it is a family calling. the reverend austin a's grandfather was an admiral in the u.s. navy who volunteered overseas as a medical missionary. his father is a doctor who cares for our nation's veterans. they taught thad that it was important to serve others. that in a nation that so generously provides what many in other parts of the world do not enjoy, it is important to give back. reverend austin has taken that to heart. he's still a young man, but he

has accomplished a great deal and he is not one to look back with pride on where he has been, but, rather, to look forward to all that he has left to do. reverend austin earned his degrees from asbury university and asbury theological cemetery and studied at oxford university and here at the nation's capitol. he is the pastor of congressional care at first united methodist church as well as a commissioned elder there. the reverend austin has preached in england, south korea and mexico as well as kentucky and tennessee and several other states an provided spiritual guidance and volunteer work in mexico, guatemala, kentucky and tennessee. while he has gone on to do bigger and bolder things, in 2009, he served as an intern in my office. admiral austin, his grandson, is

buried at arlington. our own senate chaplain, barry black, delivered his internment service. i know chaplain black is just as pleased to have reverend austin here as i am. it was a true honor to listen to reverend austin's words this morning. i want to thank him for taking time from his important work to be here and to thank him for his lifetime of service to his community and to our nation. mr. reid: mr. president, note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. alexander: i ask con send

that the -- consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: i thank the leaders for allowing me to go ahead. i join senator mcconnell for well coming thad austin. he formally worked here, as senator mcconnell said, we're delighted that he has this privilege today to -- to pray at the beginning of the senate. something that has happened since the beginning of the senate, since the very first days of the united states senate. so thank you for taking your time to be here and welcome. mr. president, would -- could you let me know when i've consumed eight minutes? the presiding officer: the chair will do so. mr. alexander: thank you. mr. president, this is a st. -- this is st. patrick's day, we celebrate that. we're coming up on another important anniversary and that is the anniversary of the enactment of the hc law, which the -- health care law, which

most republicans regard as a historic mistake. i want to talk a little bit about that -- that law. but there is another anniversary that i remember very well, and it came a few days before the enactment of the health care law and it was the so-called health care summit held at the blair house. it was a a remarkable event. the president of the united states, highly intelligent, well versed on health care, invited a bunch of us down to discuss health care and we stayed, he stayed six or seven hours. during that discussion, it was a pretty free exchange. i especially remember one event. i had been asked by senator mcconnell and representative boehner in representing republicans in presenting our side of it. the president gave as you platform that we usually don't have. he has a better platform than we do most of the time. we made our argument that we

would prefer an approach on health care that instead of expanding a health care delivery system that we all know costs too much, that we should instead go step by step to reduce the cost of health care so more people can buy insurance. that was the basic discussion we were having. i got down to some facts. i said according to the congressional budget office, the president's plan would raise individual premiums, make insurance costs more for individuals who buy insurance by 14% to 20%. the president said, after i had finished, so, lamar, when you mentioned that premiums go up, that's just not the case according to the congressional budget office. i said, mr. president, if you're going to contradict me, i ought to have a chance to respond. the congressional budget office said that the premiums will rise as a result of the senate bill. the president said, no, no, no, no -- and this is an example

where we need to get our facts straight. i said, mr. president, that's my point. and it went on from there. i had to make a decision at that -- at that moment -- i see the -- i see the leader -- i had to make a decision at that moment whether i should continue to have a public disagreement with the president and i decided that -- that while i thought i was right, just as he thought he was right, that it would be more appropriate for me not to do that in public, to let other senators and congressmen have their say. and so i exchanged a letter with the president that day and then i came to the floor of the senate later that day to make my argument why i believe premiums would go up. and, mr. president, i would like to ask consent to include in the record the transcript of my exchange with the president and that of senator kyl and -- and a couple of members of congress. the letter that i -- the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: the letter i sent to the president that day, or really handed to him, making my

point rather than publicly arguing with him, and, finally, the remarks that i made on the floor of the senate later that -- later that day. now, we talk a lot about the law of unintended consequences in -- in dealing with legislation. in this case, i believe the health care law is a situation where we had a lot of predictable consequences. republicans were saying, for example, premiums are going to rise. and, in fact, they have we were saying specifically that individual premiums will rise. and it was predictable that they would because in the first place, the health care law requires that you buy a better policy if you buy a policy. so if you're going to buy a cadillac instead of a chevy, it's going to cost more. second, there's taxes in the health care law, such as medical devices, they're passed on to

the consumer, your premiums go up. third, a lot of people who moved into medicaid are going into a system of -- of government health care where the doctors aren't properly reimbursed. so many of these doctors shift some of their cost over to the people who buy insurance. that's called cost shifting. so for all those reasons we've seen stories regularly in california, nevada, wisconsin, connecticut, that individual premiums over the last year have gone up. and let's look at some of the other things that we talked about during that time. we said the bill would raise taxes. in fact, it does. $813 billion. and, as i mentioned the tax on medical devices, that's passed right along to insurers, to people who buy insurance, their costs go up. we said it would cut compare. in fact, it has -- medicare. it has. 11 million medicare advantage

recipients have seen or will see their benefits reduced. we said there would be thousands of pages of new regulations that would hamper small businesses and individuals that he's go about their daily life. we're beginning to see them come. the most notorious is that form 199 -- 1099, which causes 40 million businesses to file a report every time they buy something that costs more than $600. we hear a lot of talk about repealing that. we've tried to repeal it for some time but it's still the law. one thing that particularly bothered me about the debate were the unfunded mandates on state governments. we see about college tuitions going up in california, 30%, 40%. people would be surprised to think the reason may be is because the federal government is imposing more health care costs on the state of california and the money that ought to go for the university of california or tennessee goes -- isn't

there. so where does the university grit the money to keep its excellence? it raises tuition. our former democratic governor, who just retired, said that the health care law imposes on tennessee a -- more than a billion dollars in new costs between 2014 and 2019. that's an unfunded mandate from washington that will cost the people of tennessee. fewer jobs will be created as a result of this law. now, someone might say, well, how can you say that? i'll give you an example. a little bit with a group of lead -- i met with a group of leaders in the restaurant industry. they're the c.e.o.'s of all the big restaurant companies. they're the second biggest higher of people. one said that they hired with 90 employees and as a result of the health care law, their goal was to operate it with 70 employees.

that's fewer jobs. and there were many other examples of that around the room. even the student loan takeover has created a problem because students are actually paying more in interest on their student loans to help pay for the new hc law. which i think -- health care law, which i think a lot of students wouldn't appreciate. so the health care law which was passed a year ago which some believe was a historic achievement we believe is a historic mistake. we believe it would have been better and would be better to, instead of expanding a health care system that costs too much, that we go step by step to reduce its costs so more people can afford insurance. and so we'll continue to advocate that. we voted to repeal the health care law. we lost that vote, but we're continuing to work, senator joans' leadership and -- senator johan's leadership and others will work to repeal the 1099

provision. senator hatch and others are working to give governors more flexibility in the medicaid program. we'll continue to advocate solutions like allowing people to buy insurance across state lines. so next wednesday is a -- an important anniversary. some believe it's an historic achievement. we believe it's a historic mistake and that there is a better solution to health care costs. i thank the president. i thank the leader for his courtesy in giving me a chance to go ahead. i yield the floor. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: when i was a little boy growing up, we used to have chickens, and every morning the roosters we had, they would make the most noise, unbelievable noise they would make. you know, maybe those roosters thought that when they crowed, the sun would come up, but it had nothing to do with that. i have been places where roosters don't crow and the sun still comes up. so my friend from tennessee is

using the rooster analogy and has about as much factual foundation as the analogy i just gave about the sun coming up when the rooster crows. mr. president, i was in a breakfast this morning, and one of my friends, he was former chief of staff to one of the senators here, said to me passing the health care bill was a miracle in the life of him and his family. those are his words, not mine. they had a child that developed diabetes. they could not find insurance for that child. you know what? because of the health care bill, that child is fully insured now. that's what the health care bill is about. now, for my friend to complain about the health care costs -- i mean insurance costs going up, a little bit of facts would make a lot of difference in that argument. mr. president, the health care bill has not -- doesn't go into effect until 2014 or parts of it do, but the main impetus of the

health care bill to cover the 50 million people who have no health insurance doesn't kick in until 2014. the insurance costs have gone up because the insurance companies have raised the premiums, as they always do. one of the reasons we did the health care bill is to rein in the health care companies around america who are really bankrupting our country. so, mr. president, let's talk about what is in effect with the health care bill and what will be in effect. i didn't come here to debate the health care bill. when something is so without foundation or fact, i have to respond. mr. president, people like my friend bob today have had miracles in their lives all over america during the past year because of that health care bill having passed, because a child under 18 who has a pre-existing illness cannot be denied insurance. and not only does it apply to children, every state in the union has now set up programs for people who have long-term

disabilities, now they can't be denied insurance. not everybody gets that. you have to be uninsured for six months under certain requirements. it's not as good as children who are under age 18, but it's pretty good. also say this, mr. president. hundreds of thousands of students are in college today who have health insurance because their parents have health insurance. that's what we did in the law. we raised the bar on that so that children can stay under their parents' health insurance for longer periods of time. i'm going to do an event next week in nevada where we're going to have a number of businesses together. people who employ less than ten people, whose average salary of those employees less than than $25,000 can have health insurance for their employees and they get a 35% reduction in their premiums. that's because of the health care bill that we passed. 44,000 small businesses in america have the ability to have

reduced premiums. so, mr. president, the health care bill is a very important bill, it's a milestone in the history of this country, and we're setting up the exchanges now so everyone can have the same insurance that i have. that's what it was all about. of the millions of federal employees have not perfect insurance but good insurance like i have. my insurance is the same as an f.b.i. agent has. and what our goal is to make sure that everyone in america has the opportunity to have insurance similar to us. now, mr. president, the presiding officer may have a different health care plan than i have because every year we have -- we're part of an exchange that we're going to set up for the 50 million people who have no health insurance. but every year we get quotes from insurance companies and we can buy different insurance. we can buy a cadillac policy or

maybe a ford policy, but we have a range of insurance that we can buy, and that's what -- that's what we're trying and we have allowed america to have, and those changes are being set up. in nevada and other places all around the country. and for people to talk about obamacare and let's get rid of it, get rid of it for what, mr. president? do we want my friends -- my friends' child to go back where they can't get insurance from these insurance companies whose interest is one thing: money, how much money they can make. so we have had to rein in those costs. mr. president, we keep talking with the -- about the cost of the health care bill. the congressional budget office said it will reduce the debt of this country by $1.3 trillion. that is not some number i made up. it's the nonpartisan congressional budget office. so, mr. president, i am

convinced that my friend was right. in his family's life, there was a miracle during this past year because they had the ability to get insurance for their sick child. mr. president, following any leader remarks, there will be a period of morning business until 10:30 this morning. senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. republicans will control the first half and the majority will control the final half. at 10:30, the senate will resume consideration of s. 493 which is the small business jobs bill. mr. president, with that piece of legislation, we -- we are working through amendments. virtually every one of the amendments are not germane to the bill, but that's okay. we're in the senate and that's how things work here. we have had scores of amendments that have been filed. i'm not going to file cloture on this bill today. we'll work our way through these amendments. maybe we can get a finite list of amendments when we come back, but i hope that we don't have to file cloture on this bill. as i said, this is an extremely important bill. senator landrieu was on a

nationwide tv program today, and one of the commentators -- who, by the way, is a republican, former member of congress -- said why would the republicans -- i'm paraphrasing what went on on that program. why would the republicans want to hold up a jobs bill? that's what this is. this is a jobs bill. a small business matter that is now before the senate is a jobs bill. just like we did with the patent bill, just like we did with the f.a.a. bill. it's a jobs bill, and we shouldn't move on. we -- we should move on. we should have the amendments focused on how to improve a jobs bill and not do all this other extraneous stuff that virtually without exception has nothing to do with this bill. so, mr. president, at 12:00 noon, the senate will proceed to consideration of h.j. res. 43, the three-week continuing resolution. there will be three hours of debate on that matter prior to vote on passage of the resolution.

following the c.r., there will be two minutes for debate prior to vote on calendar nomination number 11, amy berman jackson to be u.s. district judge for the district of columbia. we will have a briefing this afternoon for senators at 2:00 dealing with the situation in the middle east. that will be a classified briefing. mr. president, i would ask consent that the time used by my friend, who is my friend, i have the greatest respect for senator alexander. he is a true gentleman. that the time that he used in his speech this morning will be deducted from the majority's time on morning business this morning. they have the first run at that morning business. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: the republicans' time. yes, mr. president. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: next week does indeed mark the one-week anniversary since the democratic health care bill was signed into law. we all recall the debate quite

well. it was the most partisan of debates. the only bipartisan moment was in the house when there was bipartisan opposition to the new health care bill. in the senate, it was a strictly partisan vote. 60 democrats voted for it, 40 republicans voted against it. if a single democrat, even one, had changed his vote on that christmas eve, we would not be looking at the one-year anniversary of the democrat health care bill. so this morning, i'd like to look back on what we have learned during that year. shortly before the final vote, then-speaker pelosi famously said the democrats had to pass the bill so they could find out what was in it, away, as she put it, from the fog of controversy. well, now that the fog has lifted, the question arises what do we know now that we didn't know then? well, we now know that those who promised us that if you like

your plan, you can keep it were dead wrong. the obama administration has already admitted that at least seven million seniors will now lose their medicare advantage plans. and one of the administration's own top health care analysts recently admitted that this oft-repeated pledge was -- quote -- "not true in all cases." end quote. we all knew the bill created strong incentives for businesses to drop or change employees' health care plans, the ones they get through their jobs. now that the bill has passed, the white house admits it, too. one recent study suggests that as many as 35 million american workers could see their employer-based health insurance plans dropped in this way. so the administration promises on this point which were echoed by capitol hill democrats like

speaker pelosi turned out to be hollow. and today the administration itself predicts that half, more than half of all american workers will see their current employer-sponsored health care plans change within a couple of years' time. now, shortly after the health care bill became law, the department of labor acknowledged all of that. small businesses will be most affected, it said, with as many as 80% expected to have to change their coverage to comply with the new law. for all remaining businesses, the administration now estimates that somewhere between 39% and 69% will be forced to change their plans to comply with costly and burdensome new dictates from health care bureaucrats here in washington. what happened to the reassuring predictions that everybody's plans would stay the same? it turned out to be nonsense, utter nonsense.

so americans have every reason to be outraged, not only by the bill itself but also by the rhetoric that was used to sell it, and far from being reassured of all the bill's merits, americans feel betrayed. check the record. i doubt that one democrat who voted for this bill told their constituents they would see a change in their plans, yet here we are a year later and they just expect people to accept it. democrats knew exactly what americans wanted to hear, and that's what they told them, and perhaps the biggest deception of all was the claim that people could keep the plans they have. okay. what else do we know about the bill? well, at a time when nearly 14 million americans are looking for work, we now know this bill only increases costs and burdens on employers and small businesses, making it even harder for them to keep current workers on board or to hire new ones. according to the independent

congressional budget office, the health care bill will result in a loss of more than 800,000 jobs over the next ten years. what's more, 200 economists and experts, including two former c.b.o. directors, have said that the law's expensive mandates and penalties create major barriers to stronger job growth. another chief selling point of the bill was the promise it would lower costs, yet now we hear estimates from one of the administration's top actuaries that it will increase costs by by $311 billion. and the c.b.o. now estimates it will increase federal health care spending, health care spending by nearly a half a trillion dollars over the next decade. what about the cost to individuals and families? well, according to the same independent analysts at the c.b.o., once fully implemented, the bill is expected to cause

premiums on family policies to increase an average of $2,100 a year. $311 billion more cost to the government, $2,100 a year more cost to the average family. meanwhile other new rules are making it difficult for families to secure a child-only plan. in fact, families in 19 states no longer have access to these common plans is one of the harmful, unintended consequences americans are stuck with now the -- quote -- "fog of controversy" has lifted. taken all broken promises illustrate why so many americans continue to support a full -- a full repeal. which the new republican-led house has passed. followed by commonsense reforms

that will actually lower costs, improve care, and protect jobs. the fog of couldn' controversy e lifted, but to the contradiction of some, -- a year later it looks even worse than it did then. and that is really saying something. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. kyl: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona is recognized. mr. kyl: mr. president, i ask that morning business be for one hour and that the time be equally divided. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. under the previous order the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business for 51 minutes with senators permitted to speak

for up to 10 minutes each with the time equally divided and controlled between the leaders or their designees, with the republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half and the time consumed from the senator from tennessee deducted from the total time. mr. kyl: would the chair acknowledge that the 51 minutes now is time. of one lawyer equally divide -- one hour qully divided -- equally divided minus the time of senator alexander? the presiding officer: that's correct. mr. kyl: president obama's health care law turns one next week. it hasn't been aging very well. i would like to review a few key developments related to the law and its implementation and note at least to me it's very clear that this bill has not become more popular with americans, but decreasingly popular. go back to march 23 of 2010, just about a years ago, -- about

a year ago, that's when the president signed his health care bill into law and later that very day 13 states filed law against it in a florida federal court. another 13 states have joined the suit. virginia filed a separate lawsuit on the day of enactment. may 11, 2010, the non-congressional budget office revised its cost estimate of obamakaye. according to -- kaye care it will cost $115 billion more than originally estimated pushing the cost to over $1 trillion. june 10, -- june 2010, with public opinion still against the law, a poll at that time found that 58% of americans supported repeal the department of health and human services launched a public relations campaign to try to change people's minds. many seniors received a pamphlet

from kathleen sebelius that made claims like and i'm quoting your guaranteed medicare benefits won't change whether you get them through original medicare or medicare advantage plan. end of quote. it failed to note that it cuts medicare advantage plans b by $202 billion over 10 years, meaning higher premiums, less benefits and fewer plan choices for seniors. the c.b.o. estimates that the current will be cut in half. july 11, 2010, president obama used a recess appointment to name donald berwick administrator for medicare services, an agency that will play a critical role in the implementation of obamacare. it was to bypass the regular confirmation process before the senate held a hearing or voted on the nominee. it allows dr. berwick to run the

senators for medicare and medicaid services through the end of this year. a hearing would have given senators the opportunity to question dr. berwick about his very controversial views including his espousal of health care rationing. he has praised the british national health care system which routinely denies and rations care -- excuse me -- extremely effective -- i'm quoting him now -- and conscious. on september 24, 2010, the department of health and human services issued its first waiver of obamacare provisions dealing with limited benefit or many med plans. since then a total of 1,040 waivers have been granted. many to the administration's favored political constituency. it seems like they like the law as long as it doesn't apply to them. december 13, 2010, a federal district court judge in virginia

ruled that the law's mandate that individuals purchase government approved health insurance is unconstitutional. january 19 of this year, the house of representatives voted 245-189 to repeal obamacare. january 25, 2011, my governor of arizona asked secretary sebelius to waive the maintenance effort in the health care law, that is the provision that forces an unfunded medicaid mandate on states by denying them the flexibility, the ability to manage their own medicaid programs to fit their own budgets and their own unique medicaid populations. this is a huge problem because arizona, along with most other states, is experiencing a dire budget crisis. january 26, 2011, medicare chief actuary richard foster testified before the house budget committee. he acknowledged to the committee

that president obama's promise that americans will get to keep their coverage if they like it -- and i'm quoting now -- is not true in all cases. january 31, 2011, judge roger benefitson, a federal district -- benson, a federal district court judge invalidated the entire law. he concluded the law's requirement to buy insurance or pay a fee and i'm going to quote now, is outside congress's commerce clause power and it cannot be otherwise authorized by an assertion of power under the necessary and proper clause. it is not constitutional. he also writes, quoting again, it is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a british mandate giving the east india company a monopoly and improcessing a nominal tax on all tea sold in america would have set out to create a government with the

power to force people to buy tea in the first place. surely, he says, this is not what the founding fathers could have intended. end of quote. on february -- excuse me, february 2, of this year, the senate voted to -- on the senate vote to repeal the law, it failed on a party line vote, 47-51. so the senate did not follow the path of the house of representatives to repeal obamakaye. on -- obamacare. on february 14, the i.r.s. submitted to congress its fiscal year 2012 budget request. the health care bill is mentioned by i.r.s. more than 250 times. the agency, that is to say i.r.s., will have to hire thousands of new workers to implement the many new tax provisions. as the request noted, the health care law -- i'm quoting now -- presents a major challenge for

the i.r.s. it represents the largest set of tax law changes in 20 years with more than 40 provisions to amend the tax laws. end of quote. mr. president, just to remind my colleagues and our constituents throughout this country, that the health care law has more than 40 provisions, the largest set of tax law changes in 20 years. february 22, of this year, a clinton-appointed federal judge ruled that obamakaye is constitutional because it allows the court to regulate what is called mental activity. so much for keeping your thoughts to yourself. on march 3, 2011, at the request of the obama administration, a federal judge -- the federal judge who had previously ruled that obamacare is unconstitutional clarified his ruling and noted his continuing concern with the fact that if the law's upheld, he says,

congress could indeed mandate that everyone buy broccoli. end of quote. i think that the first president bush would have a real problem with that mandate. march 14, 2011, that's just three days ago, the latest poll shows that support for repeal of the health care law has reached its highest level since may of 2010, 62% of likely voters now favor repeal. well, that's what we should do. these developments highlight just some of the reasons why the bill is so unpopular and so deeply flawed that the american people agree that it should be repealed. and it should be replaced with more sensible ideas. the debate on the health care law will no doubt continue throughout this year. especially now that two federal courts have already ruled that

it's unconstitutional. it would be best if we could stay the law until the supreme court rules on its constitutionality. states and businesses could save a great deal of money and insurance companies wouldn't have to raise their rates. we'll have a chance, i hope, to vote on such a proposal. mr. president, some things age well with time, not obamakaye. . -- not obamacare. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota's recognized. mr. thune: i rise today too to speak to the issue of the health care reform bill, which, as my colleague from arizona pointed out, is now on its one-year anniversary. i think it's good to put into perspective the issues most americans care the most about. i -- as i travel in my state of south dakota and elsewhere in

this country here -- we hear repeatedly from most americans that the thing they think we ought to be most focused on right now in washington, d.c., is the economy, job creation, spending, and debt. they believe that those are the issues that most important. and i think the public opinion polls reflect that. if you look at any public opinion poll today generally they're in that order, it will be jobs, the economy, spending, and debt. and so i think that, as i look at what this health care bill has done, if you use the metric of jobs and the economy and spending and debt and look at it on one-year anniversary, i think you would have to say this has been a major failure in terms of speaking to or addressing the issues that most of the american people care the most about. on the issue of jobs and the economy, there were lots of statements said -- made about this when it was passed that it

was going to create lots of jobs. the former speaker of the house, nancy pelosi said in its life the health care bill will create 400,000 jobs almost immediately. we have the congressional budget office, c.b.o., director testified that the new law will key dues employment -- will refuse employment by 800,000 jobs. so you have a piece of legislation that is going to, according to the c.b.o., cost us jobs and the economy. couple that it will raise taxes and raise taxes dramatically by half a trillion dollars in the first 10 years, $1 trillion when it's fully implemented. you see as businesses pass those costs on to -- to -- to the people in this country who buy things, consumers, obviously it leads to higher costs for a lot of these things, which leads to higher health care costs because most of those taxes were imposed

on pharmaceutical companies, many of those costs passed on, but you'd have to argue very, very hard, mr. president, to suggest that any kind of a tax increase is going to create more jobs. in fact, historically i think it's very clear that any time you raise taxes, it actually costs the economy jobs. and so you have the c.b.o. director talking about the loss of jobs. you have the fact that you have some massive tax increases in this legislation that will cost us jobs. and you also drive up the cost of doing business in this country because you are increasing the cost of health care. -- health care for a low of -- a lot of small businesses trying to provide coverage to their employees. what we've seen consistently is an argument from the other side that this was going to drive down the cost of health care and, yet again, the facts tell an entirely different story. there was a statement made by the president, reform will lower

the cost of health care for our families, our businesses our government. the chief actuary thinks a that it will increase health care costs by $111 million -- 311 billion increase. c.b.o., the congressional budget office, estimates that the new what will increase spending by the federal government b by $654 billion over the next decade. c.b.o. estimates that the law will increase insurance premiums on a family policy by an average of $2,100 per year. so you have an increased cost of health insurance for employers, for employees, all of which is going to cost the economy jobs because it drives up the cost of doing business in this country, mr. president. so you have all these factors in this health care legislation that contribute to a loss of jobs because they make it more

expensive for small businesses in this country. so on the -- if you use the metric that the -- of job creation and how this -- this legislation impacts the economy, i think you would have to describe it as a major failure. now, again, the american people, i think, determine what's important, and they have decided -- and rightly so -- when you have got as high of unemployment as we have in this country today that job creation should be the number one priority of their policymakers in washington, d.c., and, in fact, we should be looking at policies that will be conducive to job creation, not policies that will inhibit job creation, and the massive health care expansion that passed last year will have exactly the opposite effect that we should be striving for when it comes to jobs. we ought to be looking for policies that create jobs. this actually will cost the economy jobs. so you have the metric of job creation, if you measure the health care bill against that a year later, i think you would have to say it's a complete

failure. so the issues that i have mentioned that also bear on the -- what's important to americans today, spending and debt, how does the health care legislation stack up against those criteria? well, first off, with regard to spending, we all know by now that when it's fully implemented, this new health care legislation will cost cost $2.6 trillion. $2.6 trillion expansion of government. literally, mr. president, the largest expansion of the federal government in the last half century. you would have to go back to the 1960's to find a time when you saw the government expand at the rate that we have seen in the last two years alone, and i think that's reflected when you look at the debt and deficit figures for the last couple of years, since this administration took office, since president obama took office, the debt in this country has grown by over over $3 trillion. and, in fact, if his budget is implemented, which he presented,

that total debt will double by the end of the next decade. so if you take a $14 trillion gross debt -- almost almost $14 trillion, which is where it is today, if the president's budget is implemented, you would see that debt double over the course of the next decade to almost -- to over $26 trillion. and so you have massive amounts of borrowing, massive amounts of debt, massive amounts of new spending and tax increases, all of which create, i think, an environment that's going to be very difficult for our economy and for the job creators to create jobs. you have grown significantly the size of government. how about the issue of -- as i said earlier of debt? we talk a lot about the the $14 trillion gross debt that we have today, and we have a lot of research out there that suggests that when you're carrying that kind of a debt load, if you sustain it over any

amount of time, that it's going to cost you a significant amount of economic growth. in fact, there is a good body of research out there that suggests when you have a gross debt to g.d.p. ratio of 90% or higher which is where we are in america today, that it costs but a percentage point of economic growth every year. we know from what the president's own economic advisor, former economic advisor christina roemer said any time you lose a percentage of economic growth, it costs but a million jobs. so if we're losing because of this high level of debt a percentage point of economic growth every year, we're losing a million jobs every year as a result of that as well. and so how does the whole health care debate bear on this issue of debt in the long term? well, i think it's important to point out again that many of the things that were put into this bill that were signed to be used as offsets to pay for the bill end up in the out years adding

massively to the deficit. and i will use a good example of that, the class act which was a new long-term care entitlement program that was put into this bill, which at the time that it was being debated was actually described by the chairman of the budget committee, the democrat chairman, as a ponzi scheme of the highest order, something that bernie mad offwould be proud of -- madoff would be proud of. that act was used as a a $70 billion offset to pay for the new massive entitlement program. well, what's going to happen -- and we're finding out now more and more about this -- is that that particular program, although it generates some revenue in the early years runs huge deficits when you get into the out years. because of the way the program is structured, because of adverse selection, because of the way that -- that the program was designed in the first place, you start adding massively to

the deficits in the out years. and secretary sebelius of the department of health and human services admitted to me in a question at the senate finance committee recently that the class program is totally, i quote, totally unsustainable, end quote. during yesterday's finance committee hearing, i asked the question about whether or not there was actuarial modeling done prior to the lost passage so that democrats and health and human services would have known how bad this program is, and she would not respond to or answer that question. so i have asked senator conrad, the chairman of the senate budget committee, for a hearing to really look at these actuarial models, and health and human services has developed to analyze the class act. why has she come to the conclusion now that it is totally unsustainable when many of us knew that in advance? in fact, that's what i think c.b.o., the congressional budget office, was saying in advance. so you have created these new entitlement programs. they are going to lead massively

to higher deficits and more debt well into the future, the class act being one example of that. i would suggest, mr. president, as well that when you create a a $2.6 trillion new entitlement program, if history is any indication, that that will dramatically understate what the true costs are. we have seen that historically, whenever estimates are made about some of these new government programs, they are significantly less than what was estimated when they were created in the first place. and so i would argue that on the issue of how the new health care bill on its first anniversary impacts the issue of debt, that we are not going to know probably for some time, but i think we can get a pretty clear idea that this is going to lead to much higher deficits and much higher debt in the out years because of the statements of the congressional budget office and the c.m.s. actuary and even now the secretary of health and human services are saying with regard to programs like the class act which was created under this bill.

now, i think a lot of the -- the other reason you're going to see the debt and the deficit explode is because of the gimmicks that were used by the democrats to finance the health care bill, and i mentioned the class act was one of those, but there were a number of other gimmicks that were used as well. there was this -- the medicare payroll tax increases, the medicare cuts that are supposed to occur under this to pay for the new health care entitlement program were also indicated at the time were going to extend the life span of medicare. essentially what happened was the same revenues were spent twice. they were double counted. in other words, there was new revenue going to be coming into the medicare trust fund because of increase in payroll taxes and because of reduce or reductions in spending in those medicare accounts that allegedly then would create a credit to the medicare trust fund. unfortunately, all those new revenues are going to be used to

finance this new health care entitlement program. and so somewhere down the road when the time comes to pay the bills of medicare, you're going to have to borrow money to do that because of the way that this -- these gimmicks were used and the way the double counting was used, not only to credit the medicare trust fund but also to to -- to use as an offset for the new health care entitlement program. so, mr. president, i would argue -- and if you look at the actual numbers, it's somewhere on the order of about about $400 billion that was double counted in the medicare trust fund, and about about $30 billion i believe was the number in the social security trust fund, but these gimmicks are all going to come -- the chickens are going to come home to roost at some point in the future, and it's going to lead to significantly larger deficits and a much higher debt than what we are looking at today and than what

was contemplated when this legislation was passed in the first place. so i think you have to say, mr. president, whether it's the gimmicks that were used, whether it's these new entitlement programs like the glass act, whether it's the actual cost -- even estimated cost of of $2.6 trillion in new expansion of government, whether it's the loss of jobs associated with the higher taxes, the higher health care premiums in this legislation, that if you're going to evaluate it based upon the issues that are most important to the american people, and that's the economy, jobs, spending and debt, on the first anniversary of this health care reform legislation, this has been already a huge failure by any objective measurement, and my guess is that before this is all said and done, that we're going to continue to see more and more of our employers having to drop their coverage, perhaps pay the penalty rather than continue to provide coverage for their employees, and just push them into a government program.

and i think you're going to see more and more government control, more and more influence and intervention of the federal government, more and more cost to taxpayers and higher and higher health care costs for small businesses and for families and for individuals in this country. and so on the first-year anniversary of this legislation, mr. president, i think the best thing that congress could do would be to repeal it and to start over with commonsense health care reforms that will actually reduce the cost of health care in this country, that will be fiscally responsible, that won't break the bank and that will -- will help get us on a path where -- where we can create jobs and get the economy growing again rather than inhibiting that. mr. president, with that, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from illinois is recognized. mr. durbin: i ask consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, are we in morning business? the presiding officer: that's correct. mr. durbin: and the democrat side is now recognized? the presiding officer: that is correct. mr. durbin: thank you very much. mr. president, i usually don't get up in the morning and race to read the editorial page of "the wall street journal." it's just not part of my normal routine. i don't agree with them on most of the positions that they have taken, and i have found many

times that the statements they make are sometimes grossly inaccurate. this morning was no exception. they printed an editorial on the issue of interchange fees on debit cards and had some critical things to say, which is their right, and my responsibility as an elected official to absorb. i know the folks on wall street and their friends in the press are not happy with the interchange reform which congress passed last year. they are certainly entitled to their opinion, but they are not entitled to their own alternative reality. when i read this "wall street journal" editorial this morning, i felt like i had entered into some fact-free twilight zone. swipe-free reform is an important issue so that the people who are following this debate understand what we're talking about. each time that you use a credit card or a debit card to pay for something, a meal at a

restaurant, groceries, pharmaceuticals, a donation to a charity, buying gas for your car, each time that you do, there is a fee that is charged to the merchant, and that fee is charged by both the bank issuing the card and the underlying credit card company. it is called an interchange fee, and it is a fee that is imposed on businesses large and small all across america, literally without negotiation. it is a fee that is dictated because there is little or no competition. now, "the wall street journal" probably prides itself on being the protector and defender of the free market system. there is no free market system when it comes to interchange fees. it's a take it or leave it. if you want to accept a visa or mastercard from a certain bank, you will pay a certain interchange fee every time a card is used at your

establishment. and what i learned at a hearing on this subject years ago is that there is virtually no negotiation in establishing these fees. and merchants came to me. the first who came to me was not a major retailer but a buddy of mine in quincy, illinois, named rich neiman. rich neiman is a very conservative man who probably reads "the wall street journal" every day, but he has done quite well for himself and his family and his company by opening up food stores all over the midwest. rich is a really role up your sleeves grassroots businessman. and he said to me, senator durbin, these credit card companies and their banks are killing us. the interchange fees bear no relationship to the actual cost of the transaction. he said, you know, if somebody pays for groceries with a check, it clears the bank for pennies, regardless of whether the check is for $10 or $100.

if they use a debit card, which is a plastic check trawg directly out of -- drawing directly out of your account to pay, it ends up we pay an interchange fee which is substantially higher and we have nothing we can say about it. "the wall street journal", the defender of the free market system has to acknowledge the reality that there is no competition when it comes to these duopolies and little competition when it comes to merchants who have no voice or little voice in establishing what their fee is going to be when it is charged. so we came to the floor of the senate and said, we need to have interchange fee reform. and the measure passed, the amendment passed by a margin of 64 votes. 17 republicans and 47 democrats. and then was accepted in conference and became part of the law and the dodd-frank wall

street preform. it said that the federal reserve would analyze the current state of the market and establish what a reasonable and proportional interchange fee would be. what's fair? since there's no competition here under the current system, let's at least establish what's fair. let's not let visa, mastercard and the banks fix prices for lack of competition. you know what the early analysis showed? the average interchange fee was 40 cents per transaction. the actual cost -- the actual cost closer to 10 cents. maybe even less. they were charging three to four times as much over the cost of actually clearing the transaction to merchants and retailers across america, which, of course, diminishes their profitability, diminishes their ability to expand their small businesses and large alike. and it it's -- it's passed on to

the consumer. you would think even "the wall street journal", this bastion of conservatism and defender of the free market would know the obvious, the obvious is small businesses an large businesses are overcharged by credit card companies and banks without restraint. that's not a free market. that's imposing a cost. what is it worth? what is it worth in terms of interchange fees which they refer to kind of dismissively as small and not to be concerned about? what is it worth to the credit card industry and the major banks in america every month month, $1.3 billion in interchange fees collected on debit cards. $1.3 billion. so let's do the math here for a minute. it's over $15 billion a year -- $15 billion a year, which "the wall street journal" wants to protect as a handout to

the biggest banks and credit card companies in america. well, be my guest, "wall street journal", but don't say you're defending business across america. businesses large and small are sick and tired of the noncompetitive opaque system that currently exists that they're paying for. my amendment does not create price fixing. it places reasonable limits on price fixing that are already present in the interchange system. if you look at any bank's website see if you can find how much that bank charges merchants and interchange fees. you won't find anything. there's no disclosure here. there's no transparency. why? because for years the banks have let visa and mastercard fix the interchange rate that each bank receives when its card is swiped. this means that banks don't have to compete with one another on fees they receive from merchants. they all receive the same fees no matter how much each banks

does to prevent fraud. the current interchange system, the one that needs to be reformed is a price-fixing scheme, period. my amendment says if big banks are going to let visa and mastercard duopoly fix fees, the federal reserve should regulate those fees so they are reasonable. if the bank wants to change their own fees, so be it. my amendment does not regulate that as long as those fees are transparent and competitive, i'm fine with them. but when the banks all get together, when they conspire to let visa and mastercard fix fees for them, that's when my amendment steps in and that is what offends "the wall street journal,", the defender of america's free markets. we know that big banks today receive far more in interchange than it costs them to do debit transactions. they use this excess interchange subsidy for things like ads and reward programs an executive

bonus and certainly for profts. that's what they do. the effect of my amendment will be to squeeze the fat out of the interchange system. big banks will be able to use interchange to pay for reasonable processing costs but they won't be able to use the interchange scheme to take excessive fees out of the pockets of its customers. you might ask, mr. president, is this the case in every country? and the answer is, no. in other countries that use visa and mastercard, something interesting has oh, kiewrmtd to you know what the inter -- occurred. do you know what the interchange fee is on visa and mastercard debit card transactions in canada? zero. no fee. do you know what it is in europe? it's a tiny fraction of what it is in the united states. so for visa and master card the banks that issue these cards to argue that even reducing interchange fees will cripple them, will force them to raise fees, will cancel services that

they already offer is to belie the reality that in many places in the world, unlike america, they are not overcharging merchants. they have reasonable interchange fees and in some places no interchange fees. let's look at "the wall street journal" that because of swipe fee reform you'll soon be paying for check writing privileges. well, this is an old saw. we've heard it before. and it's surprising th "the wall street journal" would repeat this argument to say that interchange reform will start causing people to pay for their own checking accounts. i would urge them, if they can, read back issues of their own newspaper. let's go back to november 12, 2008, "the wall street journal" article entitled -- quote -- "banks boost customer fees to record highs." this is long before the durbin amendment, mr. president. they were already raising fees and they will continue to raise fees and that's why some of the banks enjoy huge profit margins

and dramatic bonuses for the executives that work there. they might read the opening line of that article which said -- quote -- "banks are responding to the troubled economy by jacking up fees on their checking accounts to record amounts." i'm quoting "the wall street journal". they were already raising fees on customers long before this debate began. another line in the same article says the average cost of checking account fees including a.t.m. surcharges and bounced check fees have hit record highs. that was 2008, long before our debate on the floor here. if "the wall street journal" writers can't be bothered to read their own newspaper, i urge them what the bank of america spokeswoman, ann pace said, she said -- quote -- "customers never had free checking accounts. they always paid for it in other ways, sometimes with penalty fees." again, this is a spokesman for the industry being brutally

honest about free checking. it astonishes me how much people repeat the banking industry's talking points out fact checking. banks always say if anybody tries to regulate them it will lead to higher consumer fees and checking fees and reporters print it like it's the gospel. hasn't anyone realized that threatening higher consumer fees is a great strategy to scare away any efforts at reform. it's a great tactic because it's all speculation, you can't prove or disprove what's going to happen in the future. what we can do is look at past experience an use it as guide. for example, we know in the last few years banks and credit card companies have tried to raise fees on consumers and merchants as high as the market will allw them to go. we know from experience that competitive markets which "the wall street journal" should honor before they honor these duopolies involved in price fixing, competitive markets overseen by reasonable

regulation are the best way to keep fees and prices at an appropriate level. unfortunately we also know the current interchange system is an unregulated, uncompetitive market. that's why we see fees hidden, nonnegotiable and many times higher than a competitive market would produce. let's talk about "the wall street journal"'s suits on how wipe -- views on how swipe fee reform will ajournal. they say it's a hoax that it is pro-consumer that the little guy is going to get trampled. how frequently have you turned to "the wall street journal" to find out who's going to stand up for the little guy in america? almost never in my case. and certainly they have this wrong. some say it's great that "the wall street journal" now cares about consumers. i would -- yesterday they said

they would like to see congress kill the consumer financial protection bureau. this is a series, mr. president, there is a recurring theme here, mr. president, and the theme is consumers are going to lose and merchants are going to lose and small business is going to lose if this defender of the free market, "the wall street journal", has its ways. here's the reality. consumers right now are paying for the interchange system. in november 2009, the g.a.o. said that under the current system merchants pass on their increasing card acceptance cost to the customers. the assumer federation of america, which supports my amendment, and opposes the repeal that is now under way, does care about consumers. that's why they exist. here's what they said in a letter this week, the current interchange system is noncompetitive and harmful to consumers. it is unjust to require less affluent americans who do not participate or benefit from the payment card or banking system to pay for excessive debit interchange fees that are passed through to the cost of goods and

services. that quote from the consumer federation of america. public citizen, hispanic institute submitted testimony last month where they said the current swipe fee market is broken and all consumers pay more for less because of escalating swipe fees. they said -- quote -- "16 countries in the european union regulate swipe a fees -- swipe fees and that it benefits consumers in lower fees and lower costs of goods. make no mistake, mr. president, what's at stake here with the effort to repeal or delay the implementation of this reform on behalf of businesses, large and small across america, what's at stake here, mr. president is a handout to the largest banks in america and the credit card companies of more than $15 billion a year. a bailout wasn't enough for these big banks, now they want a handout and "the wall street

journal" is standing on the sidelines applauding that notion. these defenders of free enterprise can't wait to construct a system where the largest banks on wall street and the credit card giants can take more money out of our economy from small businesses and consumers alike. that's their idea of free enterprise. it's not mine. "the wall street journal" accuses me of pushing for swipe reform as a -- quote -- "sock to wal-mart and home depot and other giant retailers." make no mistake, everyone merchant, every business accepting debit cards is going to be accepted by this reform, large and small. but the facts tell us a different story too. everyone who accepts debit cards will benefit from swipe fee reform. not just big merchants, but small businesses, universities, health care providers, charities, government agencies, and, as well as many others, convenience stores, the list goes on.

i heard a study two years ago and held a hearing in my appropriations subcommittee how much the federal government pays interchange with our taxpayers dollar. the total was $116 million a year. those supporting the repeal or delay of this reform are imposing additional debt on a government already deep in debt an where will those debts be -- and where will those debts be incurred, for the biggest banks on wall street and the biggest credit card companies. i tried to reform the government interchange rate last year, but couldn't get it through. i'll be back. i've been at this interchange reform effort for a number of years. i got into it because of a hearing held by then republican senator arlen specter. before that hearing, i didn't even understand this issue. after it, i decided something had to be done. i wouldn't be doing this if it were just for the big box companies. i wouldn't be fighting so hard

for reform if it wasn't good for small businesses and good for the consumers and the american economy. i hope that "the wall street journal" is aware that card companies like visa charge higher interchange fees to shawbs than to big -- small businesses than to big businesses. how do you like that for competition? wouldn't it be nice if "the wall street journal" stood up for small businesses once and a while. look at visa's web site at their interchange rates for rail deb -- retail debit. you will see that the biggest have to pay 13 cents, smaller retailers 95%. dollar for dol -- dollar, interchange reform will help small businesses more than big ones. that's the reality of this reform. mr. president, i don't expect to ever be endorsed by "the wall street journal." i don't even know if they make endorsements. i haven't even asked. but i'm going to insist that they stick with the facts. and i know "the wall street journal" isn't going to stray very far from wall street banks,

which bear the same basic name, as well as the credit card companies that are duopolies in this american economy. i'm going to continue this battle for main street, not wall street. i urge my colleagues who are being inundated, literally inundated by banking lobbyists right now to stop this reform, that when they go home, steer away from the big banks. go to the small businesses that accept credit cards and debit cards. go to any one of them and ask them whether they think this is an important reform for the future of their small business, their employees, and for the local economy. i think they're going to hear the other side of the stories. some of these small businesses can't afford the lobbyists that are prowling the halls of washington today, but they deserve our attention as much if not more than the big banks on wall street and the credit card companies. mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana is recognized. ms. landrieu: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. ms. landrieu: i also ask unanimous consent to yield back any remaining morning business time, which i think is under three minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. ms. landrieu: thank you, mr. president. i now call -- the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of s. 493, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 17, s. 493, a bill to re-authorize and improve the sbir and sttr programs, and for other purposes. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: thank you, mr. president. i call for regular order now with respect to the mcconnell amendment, which is the pending amendment on our bill, amendment number 183 and second a second-degree amendment to the desk. the presiding officer: the

mcconnell amendment is now pending. the clerk will report the second-degree amendment. the clerk: the senator from louisiana, ms. landrieu, proposes amendment number 244 to amendment numbered 183. ms. landrieu: i ask that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: thank you, mr. president. that now puts us in order to continue the discussion of our very important bill that senator snowe and i have been managing this week on the floor, and i really appreciate all the members' cooperation, particularly the members of the small business committee who voted this bill out 17-1 because they know, both republicans and democrats, the importance of re-authorizing this vital program, one of the federal programs that works, one of the federal programs that helps to create private sector jobs, one of the federal programs that gives the taxpayer a great return on their investment.

one of the gentlemen that testified before our committee last week said for every dollar invested in this program, the taxpayers get a return of $107. that's a pretty good return on investment. so i see two of my colleagues here, senator cardin, a member of our committee and a very valued member of our committee, i may say. he would like to speak for five or ten minutes about an amendment that he thinks is important that we potentially could get included in our bill, and i see senator coats from indiana who is here to speak on the dmoonl -- mcconnell amendment. we can go back and forth and continue to talk as members talk about important aspects of the bill. i yield back my time -- the floor, not my time. mr. cardin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland is recognized. mr. cardin: mr. president, let me first thank senator landrieu for her extraordinary leadership on bringing this bill to the floor. this is a critically important bill for our economy.

it helps small businesses. it helps the economic engine of america. it helps with innovation with small businesses. we already know that small businesses will be where most of the job growth will take place. we know that. we also know that with small businesses is where most of the innovation will take place. when you look at patents that are filed, they are more from the small businesses per employee than you see from large companies. but in order to help small businesses be able to be innovative, the sbir program is critically important. and i congratulate senator landrieu for bringing this bill forward. it's received a strong bipartisan support within the small business committee. it provides the resources where small companies can take risks and innovate for america's future. it extends the program for eight years, giving predictability to companies and investors so that they can go out and do what is best for this country, extending

the program to 2019. it increases the allocations available for the small business community over time from 2.5% to 3.5%. it increases the individual size of the grants from $100,000 to to $150,000 in phase one and phase two from $750,000 to a million. and it does one other important thing that's critically important, and that allows small businesses to bring in venture capitalists and still be able to qualify for an sbir loan. so for all these reasons, i strongly support the efforts of senator landrieu and senator snowe and would encourage my colleagues to support the legislation that has been brought forward. but, mr. president, i come to the floor and i'm going to ask consent that the pending amendment be set aside, but first let me explain the amendment that i would like to offer. it's an amendment that would continue a policy that was

started in 2009 to allow small businesses the opportunity to be able to get surety bonds to be able to compete on government procurement in the construction industry. current law requires that for all federal and state construction projects -- federal and state construction projects -- exceeding $100,000, that the company must provide a surety bond. congress attend the surety bond guarantee program more than 30 years ago because they knew it was difficult for small businesses to be able to get a surety bond. the limit had been $2 million under that program, so we assist small companies in being able to get surety bonds up to to $2 million into 2009. as part of the recovery act, i

offered an amendment with senator landrieu and senator snowe, this was a bipartisan amendment. in fact, i don't know of any objections to the amendment that increased the amount from from $2 million to $5 million and gave the administrator the authority to guarantee bonds up to $10 million to permit small companies to be able to compete with large construction companies for procurement work. now, what's so difficult here? well, you talk to a small business owner, and they'll tell you what they have to go through with their bankers in order to get any type of financing, and then if they try to get a surety bond, it's the same assets as the surety bond company bants -- wants them to guarantee to get the surety bond. putting them in a catch-22 situation where they can't get the surety bond or the financing. that's the reason why we established the surety bond guarantee program 30 years ago. now, the higher limit had been

in place from -- through 2009 and 2010, and the s.b.a. had estimated that they would issue issue $147 million in bonds in support of projects over $2 million. in march of 2010, the s.b.a. performance report indicated that more than $360 million in bonds were actually issued. it's been an unquestioned success the higher limits. one other point: there has been absolutely no losses under the surety bond program, zero. that's why the congressional budget office has given us an informer estimate that this amendment would have no direct impact on spending or revenue. this is a no-cost amendment that is strongly supported by the small business community because they know it's critically important for them to be able to compete fairly on construction contracts.

it has bipartisan support. what the amendment does is extend the limits that we put in law in 2009 that expired at the end of 2010. that's the amendment. now, mr. president, i do want to make a unanimous consent request -- and that would be to set -- but i understand that we're under an agreement now that we cannot ask that. i'm getting word from my chairman, but let me just go on record to say that i would request that there be an opportunity for this amendment to be offered, included. i don't believe it's controversial. it doesn't cost, as i said, any expenditures. it's very important for the small business community, and it has bipartisan support, and i hope i will be given the opportunity to be able to offer that amendment. and with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. ms. landrieu: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana is recognized. ms. landrieu: i really want to thank senator cardin for his cooperation. he has been so patient.

this is an important amendment. it's an amendment that both senator snowe and i support and many other colleagues support it. we hope to get to a time, if not this week, as soon as we get back, to be able to offer and have this amendment pending so it can receive the vote that i do think it deserves. i see the senator from indiana who i think wants to speak on a different amendment, so i will yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from indiana is recognized. a senator: mr. president, i thank the senator from louisiana for arranging the opportunity for me to speak. mr. coats: i had intended to do this in morning business, but that time was running out, and so she graciously arranged time for me to speak as we took the bill back up. mr. president, i want to speak today in support of the mcconnell amendment that would prohibit the e.p.a., environmental protection agency, from regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the clean air act. this is nothing more than a

back-door energy tax that is -- should be the per view of congress to enact or not enact and not the responsibility or the authority given to the e.p.a. the mcconnell amendment, which is essentially the amendment language that was provided by senator inhofe and senator vitter is patterned after the energy tax prevention act, which i have cosponsored along with a bipartisan group of nearly 43 senators. an identical bill was passed recently by a house committee, and i want to state that it was also passed on a bipartisan basis. there is a growing consensus in this body and in congress and in the country that washington bureaucrats cannot be and should not be setting our nation's policy on climate change. the mcconnell amendment would make it clear that it's the

congress and not the e.p.a., the environmental protection agency, that ought to be squarely in the driver's seat with regard to energy and climate policy. as a member of the energy committee and noting that on a bipartisan basis again, we have the jurisdiction over this and not a regulatory agency. it has become clear that the administration's cap-and-trade bill has had no chance of passing the senate. again, because of bipartisan opposition. it's also clear that the white house has then determined that they're going to try to circumvent the congress and push this agenda through rules and regulations made by unelected bureaucrats. and as a result the e.p.a. has created these new greenhouse gas regulations that are nothing more than a backdoor cap-and-trade regime. so while the administration talks about the need to strengthen the economy and put

americans back to work, these types of harmful rules that are being imposed by regulatory agencies and specifically the e.p.a. and climate control in this regard, are having just the opposite effect. now, the reality of the matter is that not only in my home state of indiana, which produces more than -- obtains more than 90% of its electric power from coal resources, but in states across this country that are using fossil fuel currently to generate energy that this would have an extraordinary detrimental effect to their economies and to their provision of the necessary power needed to run the industries and the businesses, heat and cool the homes and provide the electricity needed to sustain any kind of an economy. particularly at a time like this it's extraordinary that this backdoor effort by the e.p.a. is simply throwing a major impediment to the economic

growth which we are now starting to see after two years of a very, very serious downturn. the factories are starting to move again, they're starting to hikes the machines are starting to -- the -- to hire again, the machines are starting to turn. all of a sudden a nonelected bureaucracy in this government supported by the house simply says now is the time to attack the climate control issue. we didn't like what congress did when they turned this down and so, therefore, we'll take over and do it ourselves. now, i have nothing against looking at ways to provide additional sources of energy. alternative source that's can help with our climate -- sources that can help with our climate control whether it's solar, wind, biomass, geothermal or any other number of alternatives. but these alternatives need to be cost effective and competitive and currently they are not. now, i ht opportunity to -- now,

i had the opportunity to serve in germany as ambassador for four years and i had a chance to pay close attention to a mandate that was imposed by the german parliament of switching to alternative sources on a mandated basis to 20% of the total energy being derived by a certain period in time. and, as a result of that, the government provided enormous subsidies to wind and solar in particular and other alternative forms of energy which was to be financed by those industries using fossil fuels to provide energy. the results of which recently announced in germany that this is not obtainable. and this came at a considerable cost to consumers and to industries of that country. two things happened. number one when the government provided massive subsidies to move to wind and solar, of course, a lot of attention went to production of those two types

of alternative energy sources. because it wasn't based on a competitive basis and because it wasn't based on what it would cost the taxpayer, there was an extraordinary subsidy that what to be paid by -- that had to be paid by the fossil fuel industries, namely coal and oil, natural gas to subsidize those sources. the problem is you end up with a -- with a distorted economic picture and ultimately the cost goes to the taxpayer and to the consumer. basically on a 5-1 or greater basis, the fossil fuel industry producing energy had to subsidize the alternative forms of energy, namely wind and solar, on a 5-1 basis. obviously raising prices to consumers, to industries using energy that was derived through fossil fuels.

the second problem was -- is that the politics, which always happens in any situation like this, kind of rears its ugly head and so every member of every state had to get their share of the subsidy. and so we see windmills all over the country that are not turning because the wind doesn't blow in some of those sections and we see solar panels being placed where in the north in particular the sun doesn't shine very much. so you have an extremely cost ineffective system put in place subsidized by the taxpayer. so as we look forward to alternative sources of energy, we have to recognize the realities of what we're dealing with here, particularly at a time when we're in economic distress and trying to move into a better economic picture for the future. if we're going to impose massive taxes on industries that are providing energy to drive our factories and run our businesses and heat an cool our homes, that is going to be at a significant

cost to employment and a significant cost to all those who use that electric energy. and so these are issues that need to be debated in this congress and with the american people in an -- and in a transparent way rather than addressed by a regulatory agency that has no responsibility to the taxpayer, no responsibility to the consumer, and is trying not to have any responsibility to the congressional authority that governs all this. i have yet, mr. president, to hear of an alternative to coal for electric power generation. most of our states, and particularly many of our manufacturing -- heavy manufacturing states are nearly totally dependent on this source of energy to run their -- run their businesses. now, it just seems to me that while technology can help us in the future move toward a position of having some additional forms of energy to

meet our energy needs, that today the reality of the fact is is that we need this source of energy to run our economy. if only the e.p.a. could recognize the reality of this situation, then maybe we could reach some commonsense agreement on how to move forward on climate control and other issues. instead, it appears this agency is determined to shut down coal plants costing thousands of jobs, weakening the economy and increasing electric bills for families already struggling to make ends meet. the e.p.a.'s actions are simply irresponsible and exceed their authority. and so we come back to -- we come back to the essence of what the -- of the mcconnell amendment does, it gives the debate and the responsibility and the authority to the elected members of the congress and the jurisdiction to the body that should make these determinations in terms of its impact on the

american people and the impact on our ability to provide sound energy and competitive energy to our businesses and homes. these are decisions that we should abandon. not that -- these are issues that should not be abandoned to unelected washington bureaucrats who made up their minds to regulate regardless of the consequences much these decisions belong to the congress and not to the e.p.a. we need to pass the mcconnell amendment. i believe it will achieve bipartisan support because our nation's energy policy needs to be addressed by this body and not the e.p.a. so i urge strong support for the mcconnell amendment when it comes up for passage. and, with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and thank the senator from louisiana for the time that was allocated. ms. snowe: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senior senator from maine is recognized. ms. snowe: thank you, mr. president. i want to join my colleague, the

chair of the small business committee, to further elaborate on some of the key issues regarding the pending legislation before the senate to reauthorize the small business innovation research and small business technology transfer program for eight years. really, when you consider what the value is of both of these programs, it's indisputable about what it will represent to our nation's economy during these periless economic times. it certainly will bolster growth. it certainly will bolster small businesses and innovation and put america at the forefront of new technologies as we've seen with the examples of those who have been recipients of the sbir program, like, notably, qualcomm when they started more than 25 years ago with less than a dozen employees and a million -

million -- $1.5 million grant from sbir, and now they're a fortune 500 company with more than 17,000 employees, just to show one example. there are numerous examples certainly in my state and the chair's state in lose lieu and all across -- louisiana and all across the country. it has an relust russ -- ill --e small business conference recommended applying this program to a a wide array of agencies. and according to the national academy science of study, the recommendation included evidence that a declining share of federal research and federal dollars were going to small businesses, difficulty among innovation for small businesses in raising the capital in the period of high interest rates and research suggesting that

small businesses were at the vanguard of job creation as we all know today is certainly the truth. so the sbir program was formally established in law back in 1982, and i was a member of the u.s. house of representatives and an original cosponsor of that legislation. but it set out several goals, one of which was to stimulate technological invention, use small businesses to meet r&d, foster and encourage participation by minority and disadvantage small businesses and increase private sector r&d. so all of that has occurred with this legislation over that period of time and which has been part of our nation's laws and that's why it's so important when we reconvene after this recess, mr. president, to make sure that we have the opportunity to move this legislation along. it is critical because we're at a point in time in our economy

where we need the jobs. we need the investments in small business. this is not adding additional costs to the federal budget because it's drawing from the already appropriated funds for research and development within 11 different federal agencies that would set aside certain amounts in both of these programs for small businesses. it has broad support among a variety of organizations that are also crucial because they've been at the forefront of benefiting from these programs, understand the value of these programs, and how they'll bolster our economy. i'm pleased to note that we have organizations such as the nfib, the chamber of commerce, the national small business association, the small business technology council, the national venture capital association in a letter it stated that our legislation represents a fair compromise to ensure that america's most innovative small

businesses can once again have access to existing government incentives to grow jobs by commercializing new discoveries. end quote. further groups that have long been at odds with these small business groups on sbir reauthorization are now solidly behind the legislation because we worked over the last two years, during the course of drafting this legislation of reauthorization and built a compromise and a consensus, you know, what is -- what is the definition of venture capital and who can participate? because there had been a ruling within the small business administration that said that had to be individuals, which excluded a number of different organizations. the venture capital firms to be to participate. so we developed a consensus across the political aisle, broad support, that ultimately brought additional organizations on in support of this reauthorization. most notably is the

biotechnology industry organization. again, it's talking about bringing drug therapy to market. it takes 10 to 15 years. millions and millions of dollars to develop a drug therapy and bringing it to market and with the research and development and to ultimately commercialize that drug therapy treatment certainly is very costly. so to have the added benefit of venture capital investments from research and development funds that are already provided within the federal agency provides, i think, a long-term benefit for our country. in its letter, the biotechnology organization notes and i quote -- "this bill represents a balanced approach to ensure that america's most innovative small businesses can access existing incentives to grow jobs by commercializing new discoveries." end quote. the group also says it represents a compromise to ensure that america's small businesses remain at the forefront of global innovation.

it also states it will help small biotechnology companies continue lines of medical research that might otherwise go unfunded. it will help to increase access to the early stages, which is critical source of funding if we are to develop, you know, the therapies that are so important to advancing our medical systems in this country and our health care. it bolsters economic growth, job creation, breakthrough drug treatments and therapies for patients, and also increases america's competitiveness in the global economy. and that is exactly the intent of this program's created in 1982, and that certainly underscores i think the value of this program as stated by the biotechnology organization. i'm confident that this legislation represents an unprecedented compromise that will give the necessary momentum to get this re-authorization over the finish line once and for all.

this is a welcome change after ten temporary short-term extensions, mr. president, over the past two and a half years. with, i think, the legacy of this program in making significant contributions to america's economy, to the well-being of small businesses. that's the engine that drives america's economy. we depend on small businesses to create, you know, most of the jobs in america. we need to facilitate that, given the high unemployment rates when we have had 21 consecutive months of unemployment rates at or above 9%. that's the longest stretch in our nation's history. so these two programs collectively and individually will contribute significantly to the growth of small businesses and job creation in this country, and that's why i think there is a broad array of organizations that are supporting this legislation because it's a testament to its

history of success. so, mr. president, i yield the floor. ms. landrieu: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator senator from louisiana is recognized. ms. landrieu: thank you, mr. president. i see that i have several colleagues on the floor, and there is another coming down to speak on an amendment. i wanted to just thank senator snowe for her explanation of some of the compromises and changes and modifications that the two of us have worked on with our committee members over the last six years to bring a bill to the floor that has bipartisan support, and i really thank her. one telling chart that i just want to put up before we recognize the senator from vermont who wants to speak on an amendment, i think this is very interesting. talking about job creation and the importance of this program. one report that looked into this program between 1985 h.r. 1995 said sbir-awarded firms added on

average five times as many employees as comparable firms that did not receive sbir funding. so again, you know, this is the federal government's largest program. it really doesn't cost, amazingly, the federal government any more money because its research and development dollars that are already set aside for the purpose of development. it just makes sure that small businesses have access to these -- to these dollars. and when we do provide that kind of access, which this bill does, these grants and contracts go to companies that not only produce great technology but hire workers. so i wanted just to put that into the record. i have other things to put into the record as well, but i do see senator sanders, the senator from vermont, on the floor, so at this point i will yield the floor. mr. sanders: i thank the senator

from louisiana. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont is recognized. mr. sanders: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, it was my intention to offer a modification of the amendment that i offered yesterday on social security, but given the parliamentary situation right now, i can't do that right now, but i intend to do that as soon as i can. mr. president, the original social security protection amendment that i had introduced, s. 207, would have prevented congress from cutting social security benefits, raising the retirement age, or privatizing social security without the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the senate and the house. i introduced this amendment because i strongly believe that congress should not be able to cut the hard-earned social security benefits of current or future eligible recipients without a supermajority in both the senate and the house, and i continue to hold those views. i have heard, however, from some of my colleagues, colleagues who strongly support protecting

social security, as i do, that adopting this amendment would have had the effect of changing the rules of the senate and establishing new precedents. while i personally do not share those views, i have listened to my colleagues' concerns and work with the majority leader to work this amendment. as a result, majority leader reid is a cosponsor of this modified amendment. there is not one senator or member of the house who is more committed to protecting social security than our majority leader, and i thank him very much for his support and leadership on this issue. mr. president, the sanders-reid amendment expresses the sense of the senate that as part of any legislation to reduce the federal deficit, social security benefits for current and future beneficiaries should not be cut and that social security should not be privatized. the sanders-reid amendment makes it clear that social security has never contributed one dime to the federal budget deficit or

the national debt. the sanders-reid amendment makes it clear that social security currently has a $2.6 trillion surplus that is projected to grow to $4.2 trillion in 2023. our amendment makes it clear that it would be absurd to discuss social security when in the context of deficit reduction. let me repeat what i said yesterday: social security has not contributed one nickel to our deficit, and it makes no sense to conflate the serious problems of our national debt with social security. that's just not an accurate projection of reality. mr. president, as i think we all know, in 1983, social security did face a crisis. within a six-month period at that point social security would not have been able to pay out the benefits it owed to eligible americans. today, social security can pay out all benefits owed to all americans who are eligible for

the program for the next 26 years. so, mr. president, i will speak more about this issue, but i did want to inform my colleagues that we have modified the amendment. we intend to modify the amendment that we offered, and we will do that when the plrmt process allows us to do that. so with -- when the parliamentary process allows us to do that. so with that, i thank the senator from louisiana for allowing me to say a few words. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nevada is recognized. mr. ensign: mr. president, i want to talk for just a little while on the hutchison amendment, which basically says that while the health care bill, health care reform bill that president obama and the majority passed last year, while that's going through the courts, that anything dealing with it would be put on hold until the courts decide whether it's constitutional or not. the reason that this is an

important amendment is because states, private companies are being forced to put and spend a lot of money putting programs in place that may or may not have to be put into place if this bill is indeed struck down as unconstitutional. during the health care debate last year, i raised a constitutional point of order against the individual mandate because, frankly, i believe strongly that it is unconstitutional. a few of the courts around the country have agreed with me that it is unconstitutional. unfortunately, that constitutional point of order was voted down along party lines, but there still is a very good possibility, and i'm hoping that the courts will see it this way, that this bill will be struck down as unconstitutional. and because there are no what are called severability clauses in the legislation -- in other words, if one part is found unconstitutional, the entire

bill is unconstitutional. well, the individual mandate is the place that most people are focusing on, and if that's struck down as unconstitutional, the whole bill will come down, and yet states with all of the program, the exchanges that they have to set up literally will be spending hundreds of millions of dollars in trying to comply with a law that may be unconstitutional. we shouldn't have them go through that. we should actually have an expedited procedure to go through the courts, put everything else on hold so that we can determine whether this thing is constitutional or not. now, let me talk just a little bit about some of the problems that we're seeing with the health care bill. first of all, we know that this is raising premiums. it was promised that the average premium in the united states would go down by about $2,500 per year. well, i will just give you one quick anecdote. yesterday i was on the phone

with one of nevada's largest employers, steve wynn of wynn resorts. steve is known to be probably the most union friendly, the most employee friendly employer in the state of nevada. has been for years. his employees love him. he takes very good care. he pays well, has good benefits. well, he told me yesterday that they did a study from 2005-2010 of their health care costs. they increased on average of about 8% a year. this year -- and he said specifically because of this health care bill -- their increase was 12%. so that's a 50% increase in the rate of growth of their health care costs. well, what did that mean to the average employee who works for the wynn resorts? first of all, they -- wynn resorts shouldered a lot of the costs, but the economy in the state of nevada is pretty stuff stuff -- pretty tough right now and it's pretty tough on the employers.

well, they passed on some of those costs to the employees. it means an additional $900 a year in costs to the average employee that works for wynn resorts. well, this is just one story, but it's a story that i heard repeated across the state of nevada over and over again. and while two-thirds of our economy is on consumer spending, is incentivized by consumer spending, if you take $900 out of the pockets out of the average employee in my state -- and i'm sure that's being repeated across the country -- well, that's less money that people have to spend to encourage economic growth. we know that this bill which was over 2,000 pages, which, you know, very few, if anybody, read it, and if they did read it, i can guarantee you that almost no one understood it. even the people who wrote it. now has over 6,000 pages worth

of regulations which once again are just incredibly complex. and unless you're a large company who has experts, who has lawyers who can search through this to try to figure out what that means to you, it's very difficult to understand. there were -- there was over over $500 billion taken out of medicare, and it wasn't taken to shore up medicare. it was actually taken out to create a brand-new entitlement program. so you take $500 billion out of medicare and put it toward a new entitlement program, instead of shoring up medicare and making medicare a better system. there are also higher taxes in this bill. literally, hundreds of billions of dollars in higher taxes. and, you know, sure they passed it and they said it was just the health insurance companies that we're going to tax and it was just medical device that is were going to be taxed.

there were 11 different new taxes in this health care bill, one of the reasons that i opposed the health care bill. let me just give you a real-life example of one of those taxes, what it really means to patients and to future cures. one of the companies that produces -- it's an extraordinary device, for people who have uncontrollable seizures epilepsy, common names for procedures. one of the treatments for that is an electronic device that actually helps reprogram the brain. they actually implant this. it's kind of like a -- instead of a pacemaker for the heart, it's a pacemaker for the brain. well, that's a very expensive device. it's over $20,000. the company that makes that device puts most of the money that they make back into research and development for making better devices. because of the new tax, they're not going to have nearly the resources to put back into research and development to

develop better products to help more patients in the future. and to tell you if -- if we wouldn't have had this device in the first place, many people out there have completely uncontrollable seizures. well, with this device, over half of those people actually are able to control their seizures. nothing else works. no other medication works for them, but over half of them are able to control their seizures because of this device. these are the types of things that this health care bill is doing damage to our health care system, which is by all accounts the finest health care system in the world. the biggest problem with this health care bill is it didn't go after the number-one problem that we have in health care, and that's the health care. we understand that health care is too expensive in the united states. even though it's the finest quality, it's too expensive. what we should do is strike down this health care bill as unconstitutional or repeal it and then start with a health care reform bill that goes after the true problem in health care,

and that's the cost. well, what can we do about the cost of health care? we all know that, first of all, that something we should absolutely do that some -- many states are doing. the state of texas is a really good example of where it has been successful, and that's to change our medical liability laws, to reign in these out-of-control trial lawyers across the country that are driving up all of our health care costs. we all know that doctors prescribe all kinds of unnecessary tests just to cover themselves in case of that one lawsuit. well, when good medical liability reform bills are put into place, what happens is the true victims of medical malpractice actually get compensation because there aren't as many frivolous lawsuits clogging up the courts. but the other thing that happens is the cost of medical liability insurance, the cost to our health care system goes down. the congressional budget office just came out with a -- with

a -- saying that there would be approximately $70 billion to $80 billion in savings over the next ten years if we enacted medical liability reform. i think that number is very, very low but it's not insuggest. but there's many other things that we can do with health care -- a health care reform bill that brings down the cost. first of all, we need to put the patient back at the center of the health care universe. we understand that today we have what's called a third-party payer system. the person receiving the care is not the person paying for the care. we need to put the person that's receiving the care back with what's known as some skin in the game so that they start talking to their doctor, their doctor has to talk to them. this can be done through things like health savings accounts. health savings accounts combine a high-deductible policy with a health savings account either that their employer puts in or they put in and then they go and actually negotiate with their doctors.

the beautiful thing about that is they don't have to worry about a gatekeeper. anybody that's boney an h.m.o. understands he have -- that's been on an h.m.o. understands you have to go through a gatekeeper to get to a specialist. well, if it's your money, you can go to any doctor you want to go to and the doctor has to be accountable to you because it's your money. if we had over 300 million people in the united states shopping for health care, we understand that market forces will drive down the cost and bring up the quality. unfortunately, the government right now already controls health care pretty much in the united states. it pays almost 60% of total bills, when you add them all up, about 60% of the bills are paid for by the government in the united states. so the government already controls health care and that's the reason we continue to see costs in health care skyrocketing over the many years, until recently, where the costs are now even going up faster. so this health care bill -- reform bill that was passed last year -- some people called it

obama-care, that bill is actually making things worse, not making things better, for the health care system of the united states. so, mr. president, i believe strongly the hutchison amendment, which would freeze any of the implementation of the health care bill until it is decided in the courts whether it's constitutional is a vital amendment to making sure that states don't waste a lot of money, that private-sector companies don't waste a lot of money complying with a bill that may be struck down as unconstitutional. and this is money you can't get back. once it's spent, it's gone and we can't get that back. and we already know how -- how much the states are struggling with their budgets right now. you're seeing what's happening in wisconsin, ohio, my state of nevada. that's happening all across the country. so we need to put this bill on hold until we know whether it's going to be constitutional or not. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senior senator from colorado is recognized. mr. udall: thank you,

mr. president. i rise to speak on a matter that is of real concern to many of us in this body but, more importantly, to the citizens of this country and it has to do with our efforts to climb out of this long recession. and there's still pockets of the united states -- the presiding officer's home state and my home state -- that feel like we haven't made any progress. and when i talk to small business owners in my state, i know they're still weathering the storm, they're looking to invest in a down economy and they really want to start hiring again. and that's why i'm really glad that we're once again debating a small business bill and that i have a chance to reintroduce the bipartisan small business lending enhancement act as an amendment. now, i have to say, i feel a little bit like this is groundhog day. i'm looking at my friend from the great state of louisiana. we -- all over again. back in october of last year, a report by the new york federal reserve, said that

three-quarters of the small businesses looking for credit last summer were turned down or only received some of the financing that they requested. and in this report from the federal reserve, they quoted -- they stated -- and i want to quote here -- "reports from small businesses of a credit gap have been both vocal and frequent." so we here in congress have decided to act on and try to extend additional credit to small businesses because more credit means additional growth and, therefore, increased job creation. now, unfortunately -- or i should say -- fortunately we created a $30 billion lending fund for banks but the unfortunate port that have is we -- fortunate part of that is we didn't simultaneously allow credit unions to do more. and since that time, banks have been reducing credit availability and even after receiving $30 billion of taxpayer money in last year's small business jobs act, banks are still not meeting the demand for small business loans. and so in light of this, i'm still very committed to finally

taking the commonsense step of allowing credit unions to increase the amount of money they can throand small businesses -- lend to small businesses. and i've once again, as i just mentioned, introduced the bipartisan small business lending enhancement act, which would open up additional credit to small businesses without costing taxpayers a dime. let me say this again. without spending a dime of taxpayer money. you have to acknowledge that credit unions know the small businesses in their communities that need loans to expand and hire and the credit unions have money to lend to those businesses. now, right now, mr. president, federal law limits the amount of small business loans a credit union can extend to 12% of their assets. nearly 350 credit unions, accounting for approximately 60% of all business loans subject to the 12% cap, are facing their cap and will have to dramatically slow their business lending. hard for me to believe this

fact, that government's telling these financial institutions that they cannot help create jobs in their local communities. and that's why my amendment would double the amount of money credit unions can offer small businesses. we all know these small business owners. i want to touch on two stories. i was particularly compelled by a small businesswoman in colorado by the name of steans hammond. she's a small business owner in thornton, colorado. they started her own business, first street salon. and they initially went to a bank for a loan and she got turned down because credit was in short supply. and to make her dream of owning her small business come true, she went to her credit union and they gave her the loan that she needed through a second mortgage on her home. and then the success story that stacy's unfolded in some pretty dramatic and wonderful ways. when i visited her, she had plenty of business and she'd even hired more workers. and these are real american jobs and a shining example of

economic expansion that wouldn't have been possible if it weren't for a credit union stepping up and offering her a loan. another coloradan, lisa herman of broomfield, she e-mailed me a success story about her securing of a credit union loan to expand her business. she's the coowner of happy cakes bakeshop -- i'm getting hungry, it's lunch time here -- in denver's highland square neighborhood. and she's been in business since 2007. and despite some real trouble in the economy, her business has blossomed. her revenue's up 25% by the summer of 2009. she's booking 20 weddings a month and she's had to expand her retail operations and move into a new shop. same story. when she wanted to secure a loan through a traditional bank, it didn't happen, it didn't pan out. but her local credit union was able to provide her with a loan she needed to grow her business. that meant more jobs and more

business for her community, and that's the american way. now, i know that banks and credit unions are competitors. they don't always get along. but this is not about them, it's about small business. and for perspective, credit unions today only represent 4.5% of all small business loans at depository institutions. and if we take this commonsense step that i'm proposing and double small business lending by credit unions, it would still leave 91% -- 1% of the small business -- 91% of the small business market to banking institutions. so, again, this is a smart, no-cost way of increasing lending without drastically changing the composition of the small business lending market. now, since some of my colleagues i know have been visited by folks who do not want credit unions to lend more to small businesses, i want to make one thing clear. credit unions have been making small business loans since their inception in the early 1900's.

that's 100-plus years ago. and it wasn't until 1998 that there were any limits whatsoever on what they could loan. so that means for 90 years, credit unions were free to help small businesses in their own communities without the federal government unnecessarily getting in the way. and that meant uninhibited small business support, growth, and job creation. but right now, the federal law, whether initially well-intentioned or not, is keeping these jobs from americans who are out searching for work. it's estimated that the average credit union small business loan is approximately $220,000 and that each $2,000 in additional -- $92,000 in additional lending on the part of the nation's credit unions will create one additional job. in the next year, i'm going to say, mr. president, when we adopt this concept, credit union businesses would increase -- i'm sorry, credit union business lending would increase to $10 billion, which conservatively would create 100,000 new jobs. all we have to do is increase

the statutory cap on credit union business lending. i want to just state again for the record, these small, simple statutory changes would not cost taxpayers a cent but they would dramatically increase the amount of private capital available to small businesses to help make payroll, buy inventory, expand, and innovate. and moreover, the proposed statutory changes are safe and fully supported by the national credit union administration, which is the credit union regulator, and they're the product of an agreement reached last year by the senate banking committee and the treasury department. as i begin to close, mr. president, i want to note all the organizations that support increasing credit union small business loans: the americans for tax reform, the national association of realtors, the national small business association, the national association of manufacturers, the harlan institute, the competitive enterprise institute, the league of united latin american citizens, the national cooperative business associati association, the national

farmers union, the hardwood institute, the national council of textile organizations, and many others. mr. udall: mr. president, i urge my colleagues to do the right thing and let's finally fix this unnecessarily federal limit on small business loans and support a smart, focused, bipartisan amendment to increase job growth and support for our local small businesses. mr. president, i believe my amendment is at the desk. i ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that the udall amendment number 242 be called up, and i ask for its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: is there objection? ms. landrieu: yes, i object, mr. president. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. udall: mr. president, if i might ask through the chair my colleague the nature of the objection, give than this would be so important to expanding business opportunities when our economy is in -- in a troubled state. the presiding officer: the senior senator is recognized -- from louisiana is recognized.

ms. landrieu: i'm happy to report or respond through the chair that a member of the senate has put a hold on parliamentary procedures that would allow us to move forward on any amendments, the senator should be aware, and so we're unable at this time to have his amendment pending. but i am personally happy that he came down to speak on the amendment. there are other people that feel strongly about that issue as well. so i hope the senator understands we're just not able to take up his amendment at this time. mr. udall con. mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. udall: mr. president, i know that the senator from louisiana has an interest in the possibilities of this legislation. i also see my -- my colleague from maine, who has graciously joined me in cosponsoring this important bill and as well understands the way in which we would trigger innovation, lending and job creation and i want to thank her. and i yield the floor. ms. landrieu: mr. president, i know the senator wants to speak actually on this amendment. die have a unanimous consent request that 12 committees meeting today -- during today's

session be allowed to meet of the they have the approval of the majority and minority leader. i ask unanimous consent these requests be agreed to and the requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. so ordered. ms. landrieu: i also want to submit a statement with -- ask unanimous consent to submit a statement from senator johnson who does have jurisdiction over the amendment that senator udall just spoke about, the banking committee has jurisdiction, not the small business committee, which was one of the concerns that i have. and on behalf of senator johnson, who opposes the udall amendment, i'd like to just submit his statement for the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the senator from maine is recognized. ms. snowe: thank you, mr. president. first i want to ask unanimous consent that yellena mcwilliams, a detailee with the small business committee, be granted floor privileges during the consideration of this legislation. the presiding officer: without objection, so orderedment -- -- so ordered. ms. snowe: thank you, mr. president. i want to rise in support of the

comments as well as the initiative of the senator from colorado, senator udall, because i do think that this is a critical way in which to create jobs in america, by lifting the cap, as he indicated. there had been a historical norm of no cap when it came to the amount of small business lending or business lending that could be done by credit unions in this country. and so i'm very pleased to join him in this effort. hopefully we will have the opportunity to $this initiative here on the floor. it deserves it, at a time in which you know government has slings exhausted all of its options to creating economic growth and focusing on job creation. this is one demonstrable way in which we can create jobs in america and also have a massive infusion of capital at no cost to the federal taxpayer, at no cost to the federal government.

the senator from colorado indicated, for 90 years there had been no cap, up until 1998, in which the congress decided to impose a cap of 12 bo.2% on business lefnedzin lending thate done by credit unions. we want to raise that cap to 25%. that will represent more than $100 billion of capital to our nation's economy. it could create potentially 100 now jobs. it would be 1,000 jobs in my own state. we're a small state, maine. more than 600,000 mainers are members of credit unions. credit unions pay a pivotal role in our state and our nation's economy. they're on the front lines each and every day in our small communities. and one of the greatest handicaps and hardships right

now for small businesses, as we all well know and even demonstrated by a recent survey by the federal reserve saying that three-quarters of small businesses looking for credit last summer were turned down or received only some of the financing they requested. that's the most recent report. so small businesses are on the front lines. they're the ones that are the innovators and job creators and yet they are not getting the access that's necessary to capital, to create jobs, to make the investments in their companies and firms that will grow this commitment of and so it's indisputable about the value that this legislation would represent in terms of helping small businesses have access to that capital. credit unions, you know, have been making business loans since their inception over more than 100 years. they provide, i think, you know, the essential capital in small business communities. they're very responsive.

they also -- they understand in determining creditworthy customers, they understand the nature of their comiewntsdzs. they know -- the nature of their communities. they know everybody. and they can make a difference in so many businesses as we will as in the community. we know that in the past, they have demonstrated responsible underwriting praying practices d sphrong management. they have money to lend. they know their small businesses in the communities and they stand willing and ready to help our economy grow. and i'm at a time in which we're struggling to find ways to create jobs, this is one sensible solution to that approach, frankly. i'm very disturbed about the inability of our economy to create the kind of jobs that americans deserve. i mean, as i said earlier, we have experienced 21 consecutive months of unemployment at or above 9%, which is the longest stretch in history. the second-highest was back in the early 1980's.

but if you look about the jobs that were created last month, which was one of three months in the last two years in which we created 200,000 jobs -- last month at that rate is it would take eight consecutive years to achieve the preu prerecession unemployment levels of 5%. in the month of january we only created 36,000. so, you see, we have a long ways to go. and the net unemployment rate frankly, as it stand today, it is 8.9%. but really in all reality, as an article indicated in "the washington post" yesterday, it is closer to 10.5% because so many discouraged workers. so here is an important, effective, responsible way of putting money into the communities, allowing the credit unions to make the decisions in terms of creditworthy customers and businesses and say, let's

give them -- allow them to be able to lend more money to the smashings theensmashings the enl help to drive this economy. they are the ones that make it happen. so that's why i want to commend the senator from colorado for offering this initiative. it is important. it is vitally important, so i hope we don't defer the consideration of this legislation in this congress that we had the opportunity when we return from this upcoming recess to consider and to vote on it. i also would like to give a few other facts that i think are important to illustrate the value of these loans in the community. the treasury department found that 25% of credit union member business loans were made to members with household incomes of less than $30,000, and that these loans totaled 13% of the outstanding member business lending balances. another 20% went to households with incomes reported to be

$30,000 and $50,000. so we're -- you know, we're talking about middle-income america. we're talking about mom and pom operations and middle-income households that otherwise will be denied access to credit. we know that. we've heard it chapter and verse. i've heard it anecdotally from so many businesses in my state and across the country. we've heard testimony before the committee, the inability of so many small businesses to gain access to credit. banks are not lending. for all practical purposes to small businesses. that's why we've had to do everything we can to make sure that we can provide some kind of ability for them to have access to the credit a and to the type of threeness would allow them to stay in business and to sustain their firms in these very difficult times. so, again, i want to thank the senator from colorado for offering this initiative and hopefully we will have the opportunity to consider it and to vote on it because it is one

way of stimulating job growth. i think that's indisputable based on the track record and the previous lending that's been done by credit unions. and this is one opportunity that we should be able to have in making sure that small businesses have the access to capital that will allow they tho continue. so, mr. president, i yield the floor. ms. landrieu: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana is recognized. ms. landrieu: mr. president, i thank the senators for their discussion of that amendment of i have submitted to the record senator johnson, who is the chairman of the banking committee, his opposition. and i would like before the senator leaves just to correct one thing for the record. i, as the manager of the small business jobs bill, we did ask the credit unions if they wanted to be a part of that lending program, and they declined to participate. so i just wanted for the record to be clear that we do -- i do

know -- and let me just speak for myself -- that credit unions serve a valuable role in our nation today. and we want to acknowledge that. but i did want the senator from colorado to know that according to the information that i've been given, they were asked if they wanted to participate in a small business lending fund appeared they declined. they may change their mind later and we could amend the program later if they should so decide. i see the senator from georgia, so i yield back the time. i think he wants to speak on a different amendment, but that's what the purpose of this morning's discussion is b i yield the floor. mr. chambliss: i thank the distinguished senator from louisiana. the presiding officer: the 10 senior senator from georgia is recognized. mr. isakson: thank you, mr. president. there is a pending amendment by senator hutchison dealing with medical waivers which prompts me to come to the floor for just a minute and talk about that issue as it is affected georgia today

and in particular it talk about it in the context of what our governor and legislature are having to deal with in terms of the mandates of the health care bill signed on march 23 of last year by president obama. on the signing of that bill there were a couple of statements i reflect back on those debates that i would like to repeat. one was speaker pelosi saying about a month before the house passed the health care tbhail you had to pass it to find out what's in it. that was a funny statement at the time but it became prophetic today as we're beginning to discover the unintended consequences of the legislation on our states and medicine. secondly, vice president biden declared the magnitude of the impact of the health care bill. that is turning out to be higher cost, less benefit and more regulation on our states. in georgia in particular, and i jaunt to bring these two points up to talk about why this whole issue of medical waive certificates so important, our insurance commissioner has

submitted to c.m.s. something on the medical cost waiver rule taking it up to 85%. that mandate in the health care bill is going to force not better coverage but less coverage of our insurance companies because they'll leave because they can't meet t it is the intention to regulate the amount of benefits as paid. the application means companies that can't meet it by the time set in the bill will leave the state. so instead you have less of what was promised rather than more. p you have less available choice and more people forced through a single-pair system and the government ornting through an exchange which prompts me to the second issue. our newly elected governor, governor nathan deal is trying to set up a mandate on the state exchange. the public wants no part of the national health care bill and wants to wait on a supreme court ruling on judge vinson's ruling in florida. these medical waivers are important. states are having to ask for

them because of the impact of the overall health care bill that was signed on march 23 of last year. and if some relief doesn't come, we're going to have some cataclysmic events. one will be the impact on employees and small businesses which is what this bill is all about. and i ran a small business. and i had independent contractors for whom under erisa you cannot buy health insurance. i tried my best to get this dong and president to approve an associate system, form large risk pools so they could compete for insurance. that was rejected instead for an exchange and for a simple system that says small business must provide health insurance to their employees but if they don't provide it, they will pay a modest fine that's much less than the cost of the insurance. that one statement forces people sm small business to leave health care coverage from an insurance corveer who gets it

through their employer and instead they have to be forced to go to a government exchange where choice is limited and mandates are many. so i just want to commend the distinguished chairman of the small business and the ranking member of the small business for the effort they're making on this bism but also commend senator hutchison on the volume of the waivers being filed. why are they being filed? they are an early warning of what's going to happen to us if we don't take the obama care legislation or start over and build a system that works where we have the private delivery of health care and a minimum of government interference. er i thank very much the chairman for giving me the time to speefnlgt. ms. landrieu: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: i thank the chairman. i thank the senator from georgia for coming to the floor and participating in the debate. i have a different view on the amendment that he spoke on. but we will continue that debate and in fact debate health care policy in this country for the

last two years and while appreciate his views, i'm hoping that we could keep the debate very, very focused on specific, if possible. but i understand that this amendment of senator hutchison's and the amendment that senator isakson supports does affect small business. so we look forward to more comments as we go forward. i wanted, mr. president, as we wait to move to the c.r., which under unanimous consent i think we're moving to in a few moments, so we'll be off of the debate on this bill, just to submit for the record some of the data associated with job creation. i know that senator snowe is very, very sincere in her comments about the lack of job creation in the country and i want to say that i agree with everything that she said in terms of the rates of unemployment. they're very, very concerning. that's why she and i have spent so much time on the committee trying to look at the array of

bills that we have at least in our jurisdiction to see what we can do to help change the outlook. and i'm very proud to say that i think we have in large measure contributed in a positive way. but just for the record in terms of job numbers, because dwhroot president obama and his -- because i don't think that president obama and his administration get the kind of credit that they deserve and frankly that the democratic leadership sometimes doesn't get the credit that it deserves for turning around a literally desperate situation. i'm going to submit these records forecordnumbers for the. i think it is important for people to understand. i want to throw a few numbers out and the i'm sorry i don't have this chart clearly produced at this point. but i'm going to give a couple of numbers. in j